DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 2, 4-8, 10, 14-18, and 20 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 20: “the waveform generator” lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claims 4 and 14 (and claims 5-8 and 15-18 by dependency): Each of these claims recite “an algorithm that is independent from properties of the at least one microbubble”. According to the instant specification, the “algorithm” that is supposedly “independent from properties of the at least one microbubble” is the LAWPS algorithm (see instant equations 8-10). All these equations depend on Ro (the initial / at-rest radius of the microbubble). It is unclear to the examiner how the radius of a bubble at rest is not a property of the bubble. For the purposes of examination, prior art which has an algorithm that depends on Ro is interpretable as meeting the aforementioned claim limitation. To overcome these 112b rejections, the claims should be amended to more explicitly recite what is meant by “property” or what is specifically excluded from the claimed “algorithm”.
Regarding claims 7 and 17 (and claims 8 and 18 by dependency): “the at least one oscillating microbubble radius change” lacks antecedent basis. For the purposes and in light of the specification, claim 7 is interpreted as being dependent upon claim 6 and claim 17 is interpreted as being dependent on claim 16.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sijl et al. (“Combined optical and acoustical detection of single microbubble dynamics”).Regarding claim 1:Sijl teaches a method for determining microbubble dynamics, the method comprising:
introducing at least one microbubble into a vessel (section III A; FIG. 3);
providing ultrasound waves through an outer surface of the vessel (vessel seen in FIG. 3; also see last sentence of section III A) and to at least a portion of the at least one microbubble, wherein the ultrasound waves cause the at least one microbubble to oscillate and emit acoustic waves (e.g., FIG. 2; section III B; section III C; FIG. 4);
receiving, via at least one receiver, the acoustic waves (e.g., FIG. 2; section III B; section III C; FIG. 4);
generating acoustic emission data based on the acoustic waves (section III B; section III D; FIG. 4; section IV);
determining, based at least in part on the acoustic emission data, an acoustic emission frequency of the at least one microbubble (section IV B; section IV C; FIG. 7b; FIG. 9); and
determining, based at least in part on the acoustic emission frequency, at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble, wherein the at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble is one or more of a change, with respect to time, of a radius, pressure, phase, frequency, amplitude, or a combination thereof(section IV; equation 4; FIG. 8; equation 2 in section II)
Regarding claim 2, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein a frequency at which the at least one microbubble oscillates is dependent on one or more of a microbubble size, gas properties of a microbubble, surrounding fluid, transmitted frequency from the waveform generator, or a combination thereof(equations 2 and 4; section I; section IV B)
Regarding claim 3:Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the received acoustic waves comprise a first set of the acoustic waves during a first period of time and a second set of acoustic waves during a second period of time(The examiner notes that the instant claim does not preclude the first and second time periods being continuous with one another. In this way, it appears Sijl inherently teaches claim 3 in that the received acoustic waves over time may be interpreted as a first set and second set, continuous with one another, even in the graphs of FIG. 2. Secondly, FIG. 4 explicitly shows 4 sets. Lastly, see last full paragraph of 3278 and paragraph spanning pages 3275-3276.)
Regarding claim 4, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein determining at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble comprises implementing an algorithm that is independent from properties of the at least one microbubble(equations 1-2 and 4; section II; section IV C; see 112b rejection above)
Regarding claim 5, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 4, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the oscillation of the at least one microbubble is one or more of linear oscillation (section IV A), nonlinear oscillation (section IV B), or a combination thereof (section IV), wherein the oscillation of the at least one microbubble causes a change in the radius of the at least one microbubble (FIG. 4; equations 3-4; section IV C)
Regarding claim 6, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein determining at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble comprises: converting at least a portion of the acoustic emission data to a frequency domain (section IV B; section IV C; FIG. 7b; FIG. 9); determining, based at least in part on the acoustic emission data in the frequency domain, a pressure propagation of the at least one oscillating microbubble (section II; equations 1-2; page 3272; FIG. 7b - Sijl explicitly teaches the monopole radiated-pressure field Ps(r,t) of the oscillating bubble and treats it in the frequency domain, it’s amplitude scaling with the square of the oscillation frequency…the ω2 relation, equation 2…as shown in the power spectrum of FIG. 7b); and determining, based at least in part on the pressure propagation, at least one oscillating microbubble radius change (section IV C; FIG. 8; R(t) is recovered from the pressure by the double-integration inverse: pressure -> surface velocity -> radius)
Regarding claim 10, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
the method further comprising: positioning the waveform generator (e.g., FIG. 2 - presumably the transmitting transducer) and at least one receiver (e.g., FIG. 2 - receiving transducer) opposite of each other (relative to the bubble / vertical direction…or in another sense, the transmitter is opposite the general propagation direction / antiparallel thereto relative to the receiver), wherein a position of the waveform generator (e.g., FIG. 2 - presumably the transmitting transducer) and the at least one receiver results in constructive propagation from the at least one microbubble (e.g., FIG. 2 - the ultrasonic waves go from the transmitter to the bubble, at which point the bubble undergoes radial oscillations which constructively propagate to the receiver)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 / 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 of this title, 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 11-16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Sijl et al. (“Combined optical and acoustical detection of single microbubble dynamics”).Regarding claim 11:Sijl teaches a system for determining microbubble dynamics, the system comprising:
a transducer (FIG. 2 - transmitting transducer) configured to provide ultrasound waves and cause at least one microbubble (FIG. 2 - bubble) to oscillate;
a receiver (FIG. 2 - receiving transducer) configured to receive signals produced by the ultrasound waves interacting with microbubbles;
introduce at least one microbubble into a vessel (section III A; FIG. 3);
provide ultrasound waves through an outer surface of the vessel (vessel seen in FIG. 3; also see last sentence of section III A) and to at least a portion of the at least one microbubble, wherein the ultrasound waves cause the at least one microbubble to oscillate and emit acoustic waves (e.g., FIG. 2; section III B; section III C; FIG. 4);
receive, via at least one receiver, the acoustic waves (e.g., FIG. 2; section III B; section III C; FIG. 4);
generate acoustic emission data based on the acoustic waves (section III B; section III D; FIG. 4; section IV);
determine, based at least in part on the acoustic emission data, an acoustic emission frequency of the at least one microbubble (section IV B; section IV C; FIG. 7b; FIG. 9); and
determine, based at least in part on the acoustic emission frequency, at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble, wherein the at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble is one or more of a change, with respect to time, of a radius, pressure, phase, frequency, amplitude, or a combination thereof(section IV; equation 4; FIG. 8; equation 2 in section II)Sijl fails to explicitly teach:
a processing platform comprising at least one processor, the processing platform in communication with the transducer and the receiver; and a controller in communication with the processing platform comprising at least one memory modules storing programmed instructions thereon that, when executed by the controller, cause the system to: perform the method steps
However, the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III. Furthermore, implementing a known function on a computer has been deemed obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art if the automation of the known function on a general purpose computer is nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions. See MPEP 2114 IV. Alternatively, the examiner takes Official notice that it is well-known in the art to use a processor and controller to automate method steps involving moving components, actuating/controlling components, carrying out calculating/determining steps, etc. It is noted that this applies to every limitation of every claim dependent upon claim 11 that recites general computer/processor/controller automation (e.g., “wherein the at least one memory module further comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the controller, further causes the system to”).
Regarding claim 12:Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein a frequency at which the at least one microbubble oscillates is dependent on one or more of a microbubble size, gas properties of a microbubble, surrounding fluid, transmitted frequency from the waveform generator, or a combination thereof(equations 2 and 4; section I; section IV B)
Regarding claim 13:Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the received acoustic waves comprise a first set of the acoustic waves during a first period of time and a second set of acoustic waves during a second period of time(The examiner notes that the instant claim does not preclude the first and second time periods being continuous with one another. In this way, it appears Sijl inherently teaches claim 3 in that the received acoustic waves over time may be interpreted as a first set and second set, continuous with one another, even in the graphs of FIG. 2. Secondly, FIG. 4 explicitly shows 4 sets. Lastly, see last full paragraph of 3278 and paragraph spanning pages 3275-3276.)
Regarding claim 14, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein determining at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble comprises implementing an algorithm that is independent from properties of the at least one microbubble(equations 1-2 and 4; section II; section IV C; see 112b rejection above)
Regarding claim 15, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 14, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the oscillation of the at least one microbubble is one or more of linear oscillation (section IV A), nonlinear oscillation (section IV B), or a combination thereof (section IV), wherein the oscillation of the at least one microbubble causes a change in the radius of the at least one microbubble (FIG. 4; equations 3-4; section IV C)
Regarding claim 16, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 15, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the at least one memory module further comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the controller, further causes the system to: convert at least a portion of the acoustic emission data to a frequency domain (section IV B; section IV C; FIG. 7b; FIG. 9); determine, based at least in part on the acoustic emission data in the frequency domain, a pressure propagation of the at least one oscillating microbubble (section II; equations 1-2; page 3272; FIG. 7b - Sijl explicitly teaches the monopole radiated-pressure field Ps(r,t) of the oscillating bubble and treats it in the frequency domain, it’s amplitude scaling with the square of the oscillation frequency…the ω2 relation, equation 2…as shown in the power spectrum of FIG. 7b); and determine, based at least in part on the pressure propagation, at least one oscillating microbubble radius change (section IV C; FIG. 8; R(t) is recovered from the pressure by the double-integration inverse: pressure -> surface velocity -> radius)
Regarding claim 20, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the at least one memory module further comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the controller, further causes the system to: position the waveform generator (e.g., FIG. 2 - presumably the transmitting transducer) and at least one receiver (e.g., FIG. 2 - receiving transducer) opposite of each other (relative to the bubble / vertical direction…or in another sense, the transmitter is opposite the general propagation direction / antiparallel thereto relative to the receiver), wherein a position of the waveform generator (e.g., FIG. 2 - presumably the transmitting transducer) and the at least one receiver results in constructive propagation from the at least one microbubble (e.g., FIG. 2 - the ultrasonic waves go from the transmitter to the bubble, at which point the bubble undergoes radial oscillations which constructively propagate to the receiver)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 7-8 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sijl et al. (“Combined optical and acoustical detection of single microbubble dynamics”) in view of Efthymiou et al. (“The effect of resonance on transient microbubble acoustic response: Experimental observations and numerical simulations”).Regarding claim 7, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 6, as mentioned above.Sijl fails to explicitly teach:
wherein determining at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble comprises: determining, based at least in part on the at least one oscillating microbubble radius change, an average pressure for at least one microbubble(Sijl teaches determining the radial dynamics and the emitted pressure wave of the bubble-- equations 1-2 and paragraph spanning pages 3272-3273; however Sijl fails to explicitly teach an average pressure for the microbubble.)Efthymiou teaches:
wherein determining at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble comprises: determining, based at least in part on the at least one oscillating microbubble radius change, an average pressure for at least one microbubble(last paragraph of page 1393; pages 1395-1396; sentence spanning the left and right columns of page 1397)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an average pressure, as taught by Efthymiou, in the method of Sijl to determine how the sonically excited microbubble affects a given location (i.e., via pressure) at a given time or time range. This may be used to tune microbubble radius and ultrasonic excitation for particular applications such as the one mentioned the last section of the first paragraph of the introduction of Sijl.
Regarding claim 8, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl and Efthymiou teach all the limitations of claim 7, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
the method further comprising: determining, based at least in part on a determination of the radius change of at least one oscillating microbubble, the at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble(e.g., section IV C; section IV D; FIGS. 6-9)
Regarding claim 17, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 16, as mentioned above.Sijl fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory module further comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the controller, further causes the system to: determine, based at least in part on the at least one oscillating microbubble radius change, an average pressure for at least one microbubble(Sijl teaches determining the radial dynamics and the emitted pressure wave of the bubble-- equations 1-2 and paragraph spanning pages 3272-3273; however Sijl fails to explicitly teach an average pressure for the microbubble.)Efthymiou teaches:
determine, based at least in part on the at least one oscillating microbubble radius change, an average pressure for at least one microbubble (last paragraph of page 1393; pages 1395-1396; sentence spanning the left and right columns of page 1397)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to determine an average pressure, as taught by Efthymiou, in the device of Sijl to determine how the sonically excited microbubble affects a given location (i.e., via pressure) at a given time or time range. This may be used to tune microbubble radius and ultrasonic excitation for particular applications such as the one mentioned the last section of the first paragraph of the introduction of Sijl.
Regarding claim 18, as best understood (see 112b rejection above):Sijl and Efthymiou teach or render obvious all the limitations of claim 17, as mentioned above.Sijl also teaches:
wherein the at least one memory module further comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the controller, further causes the system to: determine, based at least in part on a determination of the at least one oscillating microbubble radius change, the at least one dynamic property of the at least one microbubble(e.g., section IV C; section IV D; FIGS. 6-9)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sijl et al. (“Combined optical and acoustical detection of single microbubble dynamics”) in view of Lee et al. (US 20190009108 A1).Regarding claim 9:Sijl teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as mentioned above.Sijl fails to explicitly teach:
identifying one or more type of phase delay due to a spatial distribution of the at least one microbubble, wherein the one or more type of phase delay is due to one or more of a propagation source, propagation of the acoustic emission data, or a combination thereof(although it is plainly clear that in Sijl the alignment of the emitter, emitter focal point, receiver, bubble, and microscope as well as the synchronization between the components are important for accuracy)Lee teaches:
identifying one or more type of phase delay due to a spatial distribution of the at least one microbubble, wherein the one or more type of phase delay is due to one or more of a propagation source, propagation of the acoustic emission data, or a combination thereof([0030]-[0033], [0039]-[0044], [0067]; FIG. 1C; FIG. 2B; FIGS. 3A-3C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify phase delay due to a special distribution / location of the bubble due to emitter location or propagation direction from the bubble, as taught by Lee, in the method of Sijl to ensure accuracy. Sijl merely states/implies that the bubble location, emitter location/direction/focal-point, the propagation direction from the bubble, and microscope location/focus are already aligned and accounted for. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these must be explicitly done to ensure the system is properly set up and there are no issues such as alignment or spatial mis-position that may result in inaccurate data due to, e.g., an erroneous phase/timing delay in the signals.
Regarding claim 19:Sijl teaches or renders obvious all the limitations of claim 11, as mentioned above.Sijl fails to explicitly teach:
wherein the at least one memory module further comprises programmed instructions that, when executed by the controller, further causes the system to: identify one or more type of phase delay due to a spatial distribution of the at least one microbubble, wherein the one or more type of phase delay is due to one or more of a propagation source, propagation of the acoustic emission data, or a combination thereof(although it is plainly clear that in Sijl the alignment of the emitter, emitter focal point, receiver, bubble, and microscope as well as the synchronization between the components are important for accuracy)Lee teaches:
identifying one or more type of phase delay due to a spatial distribution of the at least one microbubble, wherein the one or more type of phase delay is due to one or more of a propagation source, propagation of the acoustic emission data, or a combination thereof([0030]-[0033], [0039]-[0044], [0067]; FIG. 1C; FIG. 2B; FIGS. 3A-3C)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify phase delay due to a special distribution / location of the bubble due to emitter location or propagation direction from the bubble, as taught by Lee, in the device of Sijl to ensure accuracy. Sijl merely states/implies that the bubble location, emitter location/direction/focal-point, the propagation direction from the bubble, and microscope location/focus are already aligned and accounted for. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that these must be explicitly done to ensure the system is properly set up and there are no issues such as alignment or spatial mis-position that may result in inaccurate data due to, e.g., an erroneous phase/timing delay in the signals.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Herbert Keith Roberts whose telephone number is (571)270-0428. The examiner can normally be reached 10a - 6p MT.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at (571) 272-2375. 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.
/HERBERT K ROBERTS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights