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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 9, “a power” should read “the power”.
Regarding Claim 20, it should be clarified the computer readable medium is a “non-transitory” type.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, the claims recite “the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor to apply a correction to the power estimate based on an energy loss out of the chamber through the cover”.
The specification repeats the claim language but does not disclose specifically how a correction to the power estimate based on an energy loss out of the chamber through the cover is determine and how it is applied to the power estimate.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “adjusting driving levels of the ultrasonic transducer in response to the estimate”. The specification does not disclose how the driving levels are adjusted in response to the estimate. When an estimate is made, how does that affect driving levels?
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 11, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding Claims 11 and 13, the claims recite “the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor to apply a correction to the power estimate based on an energy loss out of the chamber through the cover”.
The specification repeats the claim language but does not disclose specifically how a correction to the power estimate based on an energy loss out of the chamber through the cover is determine and how it is applied to the power estimate.
Regarding Claim 19, the claim recites “adjusting driving levels of the ultrasonic transducer in response to the estimate”. The specification does not disclose how the driving levels are adjusted in response to the estimate. When an estimate is made, how does that affect driving levels?
Turning to the Wands factors, no guidance is provided by the applicant, nor are any working examples provided in the specification or the prior art.
As such, the claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
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 1 – 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding Claims 1, 17, and 20, the claims recite “reduce a temperature variation across the chamber during heating by the ultrasound beam”. It is unclear as to what the reduction is relative to, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 3, the term “thin” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to at what point a film can be considered “thin”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 4, the claim recites “scatter the ultrasound beam to increase an ultrasound absorption in the chamber”. It is unclear as to what the increase is relative to, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Regarding Claim 18, the claim recites a “low position”. It is unclear as to what a “low position” is and at what point a position can be considered “low”, thus rendering the claim indefinite.
Claims dependent upon a rejected claim are therefore rejected as well.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4 – 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fay (DE 19836727). Citations pertaining to Fay refer to the attached English translation.
Regarding Claim 1, Fay discloses an ultrasound measurement device, in at least Figure 2, comprising: a chamber (10) configured to retain an ultrasound detection fluid [0009], wherein the ultrasound detection fluid is configured to absorb an ultrasound beam and to reduce a temperature variation across the chamber during heating by the ultrasound beam [0009] (Figure 2); and an acoustic power meter including at least one temperature sensor coupled to the chamber (8, 9) [0009], wherein the temperature sensor is operable to sense a temperature change of the ultrasound detection fluid in response to the heating by the ultrasound beam [0009] and the acoustic power meter is configured to estimate a power of the ultrasound beam based on the temperature change [0009].
Regarding Claim 2, Fay discloses an inlet aperture (6) configured to receive the ultrasound beam from an ultrasound transducer (Figure 2), and an inlet cover (11) that is transmissive at ultrasound frequencies and that extends across the inlet aperture [0009] (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Fay discloses the chamber includes an ultrasound scatterer (4) configured to scatter the ultrasound beam to increase an ultrasound absorption in the chamber [0009] (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Fay discloses the scatterer comprises a cone [0008, 0011] (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Fay discloses the chamber has opposing ends with the inlet aperture situated at one of the opposing ends and the scatterer is situated at the other of the opposing ends (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Fay discloses the chamber includes an ultrasound absorbing interior layer (4) configured to be in contact with the detection fluid (Figure 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Fay disclose the ultrasound absorbing layer includes rubber [0009].
Regarding Claim 17, Fay discloses a method of measuring the acoustic power of an ultrasound transducer [0009], comprising: coupling an ultrasound transducer (2) to an ultrasound measurement device (Figure 2), wherein the ultrasound measurement device includes a chamber (10) configured to retain an ultrasound detection fluid [0009], wherein the ultrasound detection fluid is configured to absorb an ultrasound beam and to reduce a temperature variation across the chamber during heating by the ultrasound beam [0009], and wherein the ultrasound measurement device includes an acoustic power meter including at least one temperature sensor (8, 9) coupled to the chamber [0009] (Figure 2), wherein the temperature sensor is operable to sense a temperature change of the ultrasound detection fluid in response to the heating by the ultrasound beam [0009] and the acoustic power meter is configured to estimate a power of the ultrasound beam based on the temperature change [0009]; and generating the ultrasound beam with the ultrasound transducer and directing the ultrasound beam into the chamber to estimate the power of the ultrasound beam [0009].
Regarding Claim 18, Fay discloses thee chamber includes an inlet aperture (6) configured to receive the ultrasound beam from an ultrasound transducer (Figure 2), and an inlet cover (11) that is transmissive at ultrasound frequencies and that extends across the inlet aperture [0009] (Figure 2); wherein the coupling the ultrasound transducer to the ultrasound measurement device includes arranging the chamber such that the inlet aperture is at a low position with the ultrasound transducer directing the beam upward into the chamber through the inlet aperture (Figure 2).
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.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay (DE 19836727), in view of Vitek (US 2003/0105398).
Regarding Claim 3, Fay fails to expressly disclose the inlet cover comprises a thin mylar film.
Fay does disclose the film is acoustically transparent [0009].
Vitek teaches acoustically transparent films include mylar [0026].
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to utilize a thin mylar film as the inlet cover for the benefit of utilizing a material known in the art to be acoustically transparent, as taught by Vitek [0026].
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay (DE 19836727).
Regarding Claim 9, Fay fails to expressly disclose the acoustic power meter includes at least a processor and memory configured with processor- executable instructions that cause the processor to estimate a power of the ultrasound beam based on the temperature change.
Fay does disclose the estimation is an equation [0009] and that the temperature sensors are electrical (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Fay so that the temperature sensors are connected to a controller i.e. a processor and memory configured with processor- executable instructions that cause the processor to perform the equation i.e. estimate a power of the ultrasound beam based on the temperature change for the benefit of collecting data with a computer to automate the characterization process.
Regarding Claim 10, Fay renders obvious the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor (rendered obvious in the rejection of Claim 9 above) to determine a temperature difference from a signal provided by the at least one temperature sensor and to produce the power estimate from the determined temperature difference and a duration of the ultrasound beam being directed into the chamber to produce the heating of the ultrasound detection fluid (duration required to generate a constant temperature gradient) [0009].
Regarding Claim 12, Fay discloses the at least one temperature sensor comprises a plurality of temperature sensors with each temperature sensor associated with a respective portion of the chamber (8, 9) (Figure 2).
Fay fails to expressly disclose wherein the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor to: produce the estimate of the power of the ultrasound beam by averaging the temperatures of the portions.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to average measurements to improve precision.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Fay so that the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor to: produce the estimate of the power of the ultrasound beam by averaging the temperatures of the portions for the benefit of increasing the precision of Fay’s power estimate.
Regarding Claim 14, Fay fails to expressly disclose the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor to interpolate or extrapolate ultrasound beam power estimates to produce a power estimate at a different transducer driving level.
Examiner takes Official Notice it is common knowledge in the art to interpolate and/or extrapolate transducer characteristics to characterize the transducer at other working regimes.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Fay so that the processor-executable instructions are configured to cause the processor to interpolate or extrapolate ultrasound beam power estimates to produce a power estimate at a different transducer driving level for the benefit of evaluating the ultrasonic device for various applications.
Regarding Claim 20, Fay discloses the ultrasound measurement device comprises a chamber (10) configured to retain an ultrasound detection fluid [0009], wherein the ultrasound detection fluid is configured to absorb an ultrasound beam and to reduce a temperature variation across the chamber during heating by the ultrasound beam [0009] (Figure 2), and wherein the ultrasound measurement device comprises an acoustic power meter including at least one temperature sensor (8, 9) coupled to the chamber [0009] (Figure 2), wherein the temperature sensor is operable to sense a temperature change of the ultrasound detection fluid in response to the heating by the ultrasound beam [0009] and the acoustic power meter is configured to estimate the power of the ultrasound beam based on the temperature change [0009].
Fay fails to expressly disclose a computer readable medium configured with stored processor- executable instructions for the ultrasound measurement device to estimate a power of an ultrasound beam
Fay does disclose the estimation is an equation [0009] and that the temperature sensors are electrical (Figure 2).
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Fay so that the temperature sensors are connected to a controller i.e. a processor and memory configured with processor- executable instructions that cause the processor to perform the equation i.e. estimate a power of the ultrasound beam based on the temperature change for the benefit of collecting data with a computer to automate the characterization process.
Claim(s) 15 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fay (DE 19836727), in view of Reichel et al. (US 2004/0112980).
Regarding Claim 15, Fay discloses the detection fluid is water [0009].
Fay fails to expressly disclose the detection fluid includes glycerin.
Reichel teaches a detection fluid being a mixture of glycerin and water.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify Fay so that the detection fluids a mixture of water and glycerin for the benefit of altering the impedance of the fluid so that it may be best matched in the device, as taught by Reichel [0157].
Regarding Claim 16, the combination fails to expressly disclose the mixture is between 5% and 35% glycerin.
As the amount of glycerin added to the water alters the acoustic match (Reichel [0157], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the applicant’s invention to modify the combination so that an appropriate amount of glycerin is added to the water, including an amount between 5% and 35%, for the benefit of altering the impedance of the fluid so that it may be best matched in the device, as taught by Reichel [0157].
Conclusion
A complete search and consideration of Claims which do not have a prior art rejection was not possible due to the 112 issues as outlined above. Upon applicant’s clarification of the claims, a comparison with the prior art will again be made.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MERCADO whose telephone number is (571)270-7094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 9am - 4pm EST.
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, Laura Martin can be reached at (571) 272-2160. 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.
ALEXANDER A. MERCADO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2855
/ALEXANDER A MERCADO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights