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 .
DETAILED ACTION
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: "unit" (couplant assembly unit).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 12 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. Limitation “rigid post” is unclear. There is no “rigid post” in claim 1. It should be “rigid post holder”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10 and 15-16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109).
Addressing claims 1 and 26, Ramamurthy discloses and system and an apparatus:
flexible backing configured to conform to a curvature of a subject's skull (see [0034], [0051], [0130-0131], claim 90 and Fig. 3, element 12/12B can be rigid or flexible);
an array of rigid post holders mounted to the flexible backing configured to hold one or more arrays of posts and wherein each post holder supporting each post in the one or more arrays of posts comprises: an assembly unit housing at least one of an ultrasound transducer element or an electroencephalogram (EEG) electronics couple to the post holder (see [0121] and Figs. 2-3; elements 120 is rigid post holder on flexible backing 12/12B, elements 125 and 20 is the post and assembly unit is element 20);
a spring layer connected to the assembly unit (see Fig. 2A and [0121]; element 124);
a stiff post embedded in the spring layer, the stiff post configured as one or more ultrasound transmitting posts or one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) post (see Fig. 2A; the transducer 20 is attach/connect to the spring layer 124; 125 embedded in spring 124);
a couplant assembly unit at a tip of the stiff post configured to contact a head of a subject (see [0066], Figs. 1-1A and 2A; examiner interpreted the limitation as gel layer couple/holder to the transducer or holder at the tip as see in Figs. 8 and 11-12; gel 33 at tip of 20);
wherein the spring layer enables vertical movement of the stiff post relative to the rigid post holder and the rigid post holder prevents lateral movement of the stiff post (see [0031] and [0122]; spring hold restore force to enables vertical movement of stiff post transducer element 20; housing body 122 prevent lateral movement; housing base 121 prevent/limit element 20 from lateral/left right movement).
Addressing claims 2-3, 5, 10 and 15-16, Ramamurthy discloses:
addressing claim 2, wherein the one or more arrays of posts are electrically conductive (see [0101]; implicit that the post is electrically conductive to supply power to ultrasound and EEG).
addressing claim 3, wherein the one or more arrays of posts are electrically conductive based on at least one of: patches of conductive gel, patches of conductive film, doping, metal coating, or metal strands embedded in the one or more EEG posts (see [0024] and [0101]).
addressing claim 5, wherein the one or more arrays of posts comprise conductive gel coatings bonded to the one or more posts (see [0019] and [0108]; gel, degas water is conductive;).
addressing claim 10, wherein the one or more arrays of posts are separated using at least one of: air gaps or vibration-damping material (see Figs. 2-2A; airgap between different housing 120).
addressing claim 15, wherein the couplant assembly unit comprises at least one of gel tips, rubber, or silicone, and the couplant assembly unit is acoustically, electrically, or acoustically and electrically matched to at least one arrays of post of the one or more posts (see [0058]; elements 30 and 32).
addressing claim 16, wherein the couplant assembly unit is flat or convex shaped, and wherein the couplant assembly unit is connected to one or more internal channels or one or more reservoirs for delivery of couplant (see Fig. 1A and [0061]; elements 30 and 32; valves/channels/reservoirs to allow coupling fluid/gel to fill or withdraw from jacket).
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.
Claims 4, 6, 8-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109).
Addressing claims 4, 6, 8-9, 11 and 14, Ramamurthy discloses:
addressing claim 4, wherein the one or more arrays of posts and the one or more ultrasound transmitting posts are electrically conductive based on metal strands comprising a diameter less than the ultrasound wavelength, and a distance between the metal strands is greater than an ultrasound wavelength (see [0023]; Ramamurthy disclose metal conductive strips that has the distance between the strands/strips is greater than the ultrasound wavelength; Ramamurthy does not disclose the diameter of the strips; however, change the size is obvious and only require routine skill in the art (In re Rose, 220 F.2d 459, 105 USPQ 237 (CCPA 1955) (Claims directed to a lumber package “of appreciable size and weight requiring handling by a lift truck” were held unpatentable over prior art lumber packages which could be lifted by hand because limitations relating to the size of the package were not sufficient to patentably distinguish over the prior art.); In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) (“mere scaling up of a prior art process capable of being scaled up, if such were the case, would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled.” 531 F.2d at 1053, 189 USPQ at 148.)).
addressing claim 6, wherein the one or more arrays of posts and the one or more ultrasound transmitting posts are constructed to be acoustically similar (see [0108] and Fig. 2A; obvious one of ordinary skill in the art to have housing and transducer element to be acoustically similar to improve acoustic transmission).
addressing claim 8, wherein the spring layer that is acoustically matched to at least one of: the respective ultrasound transmitting post and soft tissue and is constructed using silicone or rubber (see Fig. 2A, [0031], and [0122]; the specification does not disclose how a spring layer is acoustically matched to at least one of: the respective ultrasound transmitting post and soft tissue; Ramamurthy’s spring 124 that support the transducer that press against patient head is acoustically matched to at least one of: the respective ultrasound transmitting post and soft tissue).
addressing claim 9, wherein the spring layer comprises a conductive spring layer comprising doped silicon or doped rubber (see Fig. 2A; the spring 124 connect to the housing; spring usually make of conductive material such as metal; doped rubber include metal; it only requires routine skill in the art to have spring of different conductive material such as silicon or dope rubber; see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure in the section below).
addressing claim 11, wherein at least one of the one or more ultrasound
transmitting posts are arranged in a first area, at least a one of the one or more EEG posts are arranged in a second area, and first area is electrically isolated from the second area (see [0108]; Ramamurthy disclose using EEG; however, he does not disclose where or how EEG is mounted on the device; (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice); see the prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109) and in view of Aida et al. (US 5,590,653).
Addressing claim 12, Ramamurthy does not disclose wherein the rigid post comprises a concave surface, and the one or more posts extend from the concave surface. This is a designer choice that only require routine skill in the art. Aida explicitly discloses wherein the rigid housing structure comprises a concave surface, and the one or more posts extend from the concave surface (see Figs. 16-17; rigid post holder 120 with concave surface where the post 126 extend from the concave surface). Examiner only relies on Aida to explicitly discloses a designer choice. The surface could be flat or concave that does not change the operation principle.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109) and in view of Zhang et al. (US 2014/0316269).
Addressing claim 13, Ramamurthy does not disclose wherein at least a subset of the arrays of posts comprises internal channels that deliver couplant materials. Zhang discloses wherein at least a subset of the arrays of posts comprises internal channels that deliver couplant materials (see [0145], Fig. 61C and claim 66; element 2000 is the holder; element 2030 is the posts comprises internal channels that deliver couplant materials). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy to have wherein at least a subset of the posts comprises internal channels that deliver couplant materials as taught by Zhang because this conveniently supply coupling fluid to the transducer without the need for external coupling bag/layer.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109) and in view of Steen et al. (US 2013/0226001).
Addressing claim 14, Ramamurthy does not disclose assembly unit houses one or more of: a control system or an analog front end. Steen discloses assembly unit houses one or more of: a control system or an analog front end (see [0020] and Fig. 1; the probe assembly include analog front end). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy to have assembly unit houses one or more of: a control system or an analog front end as taught by Steen because this allow the system to be portable and work independently without connect to an ultrasound system (see [0019-0020]; the wireless ultrasound probe is the ultrasound system without the need to connect to the an ultrasound system).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109) and in view of Dvorak et al. (US 2023/0190185).
Addressing claim 17, Ramamurthy does not disclose shield EEG pathways. Dvorak discloses shielding of EEG signal pathway (see [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy to have shielding for EEG pathways because this prevents electromagnetic interference (see [0047]).
Claims 7 and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109) and in view of Babaev (US 2009/0299235).
Addressing claims 7 and 27-28, Ramamurthy does not disclose electrical insulation and ultrasound dampening. Babaev discloses electrical insulation and ultrasound dampening (see [0035]; dampening and isolation so that the heat, electrical and mechanical (ultrasound) energy emitted from the ultrasound transducer do not interfere with the operator's control of the device; isolate electrical from interference is electrical insulation; Ramamurthy discloses an assembly unit that houses a transducer array element, wherein the assembly unit is connected to a spring layer (see Fig. 2A; transducer array element 20 connects to spring 124)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy to have electrical insulation and ultrasound dampening as taught by Babaev because this prevents operational interference (see [0035]).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109), in view of Babaev (US 2009/0299235) and further in view of Dvorak et al. (US 2023/0190185).
Addressing claim 29, Ramamurthy does not disclose shield EEG pathways. Dvorak discloses shielding of EEG signal pathway (see [0047]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramamurthy to have shielding for EEG pathways because this prevents electromagnetic interference (see [0047]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/18/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues element 12 discloses by Ramamurthy is rigid and not flexible. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Ramamurthy disclose that in certain embodiment backing element 12 is flexible. Applicant argues Ramamurthy discloses gimbal arrangement therefore it is not a rigid post holder which constrain lateral displacement. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Ramamurthy disclose some embodiment has pivot support and gimbal arrangement further as see in Fig. 2A, element 121 does restrict/constrain/prevent lateral (side to side) movement. The pivot arrangement allows for some yaw, pitch, back and front movement. The housing 120 with base 121 does prevent some lateral movement. Applicant argues Ramamurthy's jacket 30 consists of broad contiguous regions (50A-50E) that interface globally with the head, rather than discrete, post-specific couplant tip assemblies that penetrate hair to make individual scalp contact. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because this limitation is not in the claim (discrete, post-specific couplant tip assemblies that penetrate hair to make individual scalp contact). Further, as see in Fig. 2A, gel 33 is at the tip of element 20. Applicant argues Aida and Babaev fail to teach or suggest an array of rigid post holders mounted on a flexible backing. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because examiner does not rely on Aida and Babaev to teach an array of rigid post holders mounted on a flexible backing. Further, as see in Aida the rigid post holder 120 prevent movement of post 126. Applicant argues Zhang does not teach rigid posts embedded in a spring layer. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because examiner does not rely on Zhang to teach this limitation. Applicant argues Dvorak fails to teach or suggest the core combination of Claims 1 and 26. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because examiner does not rely on Dvorak to teach core combination of Claims 1 and 26. Applicant argues Ramamurthy does not disclose an integrated system. Applicant’s argument is not persuasive because Steen discloses an integrated self-contained ultrasound probe/assembly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2016/0143541 (provided in the IDS) (see Fig. 2, ultrasound and EEG sensor arrange in different area) and US 2008/0177221 (see [0053]; metal or silicon spring; these are conductive material).
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 HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights