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
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/17/26 has been entered.
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 § 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 1-6, 8-11, 14-16 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramamurthy et al. (US 2023/0082109).
Addressing claims 1 and 26, Ramamurthy discloses:
a system comprising: a rigid housing structure (see Fig. 2 and [0052]; rigid elements 12 and 14);
one or more arrays of posts held by the rigid housing structure, wherein a respective post of 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 (see [0121], Figs. 2 and 2A; elements 120, 122, 125 and 130);
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 post or one or more electroencephalogram (EEG) post (see Fig. 2A; element 20; the transducer post is attach/connect to the spring layer; Ramamurthy does not disclose post embedded in the spring layer; however, rearrangement of parts only require routine skill in the art and does not change the operation principle; 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));
a couplant assembly unit at a tip of the stiff post configured to contact a head of a subject (see [0066] and Figs. 1-1A; 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; any arrangement to provide good transmission from transducer to patient’s skin only require routine skill in the art (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975));
wherein the spring layer enables vertical movement of the stiff post relative to the rigid housing structure and the rigid housing structure 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; rigid elements 12 and 14 prevent lateral movement).
an apparatus comprising: a rigid housing structure (see Fig. 2 and [0052]; rigid elements 12 and 14);
one or more arrays of posts held by the rigid housing structure, wherein a respective post of 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 (see [0121], Figs. 2 and 2A; elements 120, 122, 125 and 130);
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 an ultrasound transmitting post, an electroencephalogram (EEG) post, or an ultrasound and EEG transmitting post (see Fig. 2A; element 20; the transducer post is attach/connect to the spring layer; Ramamurthy does not disclose post embedded in the spring layer; however, rearrangement of parts only require routine skill in the art and does not change the operation principle; 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)),
a couplant assembly unit at a tip of the stiff post configured to contact a head of a subject (see [0066] and Figs. 1-1A; 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; any arrangement to provide good transmission from transducer to patient’s skin only require routine skill in the art (In reJapikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) and In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975)));
wherein the spring layer enables vertical movement of the stiff post relative to the rigid housing structure and the rigid housing structure 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; rigid elements 12 and 14 prevent lateral movement).
Addressing claims 2-6, 8-11 and 14-16, Ramamurthy discloses:
addressing claim 2, wherein the one or more arrays of posts are electrically conductive (see [0101]; obvious 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 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 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 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 a respective ultrasound transmitting post of the
one or more ultrasound transmitting posts is connected to a spring layer that is
acoustically matched to at least one of: the respective ultrasound transmitting post and soft tissue (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 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 11, wherein at least a 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).
addressing claim 14, an assembly unit that houses one or more of: a transducer array element, a control system, and an analog front end, wherein the assembly unit is connected to a spring layer (see Figs. 2A, 4A and [0141]; transducer array element 20 connects to spring 124; transducer element housing 120 obviously include a circuit type of system (ultrasound transmit driver circuit) not show in Figure to power and control transducer element 20).
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 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 housing structure 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. Nakaso 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 housing structure 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 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; Rmamurthy discloses an assembly unit that houses one or more of: a transducer array element, a control system, and an analog front end, 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 with respect to claim(s) 1-17 and 26-29 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.
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).
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