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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on March 18, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, 11, 12, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mahfouz et al. (US 2013/0144135, From IDS filed on November 15, 2024, hereinafter Mahfouz ‘135).
In re claim 1, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches a method for localizing a target in an individual, comprising: transmitting an ultrasonic signal from a transducer array (0122); generating radiofrequency (RF) signal data based on a reflected signal received at the transducer array (0123), the reflected signal resulting from the transmitted ultrasonic signal (0123), wherein at least a portion of the reflected signal includes a signal reflected from the target (0122, 0125, 0127); determining a location of the target relative to the transducer array based on the RF signal data (fig. 8, 60, 0091, scanning dept is relative; fig. 10, 162, 162a, 0122-0127, figs. 20-27); and providing a location indicator to an operator, the location indicator being based on the determined location of the target (fig. 10, 162, 162a, fig.17s, 196, 200, fig. 27, 0122-0144).
In re claim 2, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the target is a fiducial marker (fig. 16-17, 196).
Note Applicant defines that: the disclosure is described with reference to “targets” and/or “fiducial markers,” which should be broadly interpreted to describe a marker (e.g., an implantable marker, etc.), a region of interest (e.g., a tissue mass or any other anatomical target), an implant (e.g., orthopedic implant, etc.), or any other target. See 0015.
In re claim 3, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the location of the target includes a distance from the target to the transducer array and/or a direction of the target relative to the transducer array (fig. 10, 142 vs 162 and 162a).
In re claim 4, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein determining a location of the target includes distinguishing the target from other artifacts in the RF signal data (fig.10, 162 vs 162a; 0081-0083, bone and soft-tissue-bone, 0089).
In re claim 5, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the location of the target is determined by feature extraction using a machine learning classifier on the RF signal data (0084-0088, 0121, note neural network, svm with training are machine learning).
In re claim 6, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches further comprising preprocessing (which is done before transformation of 3D contour, hence, preprocessing, 0097) the RF signal data to increase a signal-to-noise ratio of the RF signal data (0080-0083, 0089-0091, note that when removing noise, SNR is improved/increase).
In re claim 7, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the preprocessing comprises: transforming the RF signal data into frequency domain signal data; and applying one or more filters to the frequency domain signal data (0080-0083, 0089-0091, 0129).
In re claim 8, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the location of the target is determined using image processing of a B-mode image reconstructed from the RF signal data (0071, 0072, 0098).
In re claim 9, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the image processing comprises: analyzing the B-mode image to identify the target; and determining a distance from the target to the transducer array based on the identified target (0071, 0072, 0097, 0098, 0100).
In re claim 11, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein analyzing the B-mode image comprises image segmentation and/or classification (0093-0095; 0107).
In reclaim 12, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the location indicator is an audible tone and/or a visual display (fig. 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27; 0098).
In re claim 14, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the visual display provides a visual representation of the distance from the target to the transducer array and/or the direction of the target relative to the transducer array (figs. 8, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 27; 0070-0073; 0098).
In re claim 15, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the steps of transmitting an ultrasound signal and generating RF signal data are repeated (0072, 0100).
In re claim 16, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches further comprising updating the location of the target (0072, 0125, 0134, 0141).
In re claim 17, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches further comprising: transmitting an additional ultrasonic signal from a transducer array; generating RF signal data based on a reflected signal received at the transducer array, the reflected signal resulting from the transmitted additional ultrasonic signal, wherein no portion of the reflected signal includes a signal reflected from the target; and identifying that no target is present in the reflected signal (0072).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahfouz ‘135 in view of Patil et al. (US 2017/0333006, hereinafter Patil ‘006).
In re claim 6, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches further comprising preprocessing (which is done before transformation of 3D contour, hence, preprocessing, 0097) the RF signal data to increase a signal-to-noise ratio of the RF signal data (0080-0083, 0089-0091, note that when removing noise, SNR is improved/increase).
In re claim 7, Mahfouz ‘135 teaches wherein the preprocessing comprises: transforming the RF signal data into frequency domain signal data; and applying one or more filters to the frequency domain signal data (0080-0083, 0089-0091, 0129).
Even if Mahfouz ‘135 fails to clearly teach the word “preprocessing” and “increase SNR Patil ‘006 teaches raw RF echo signals are pre-processed to improve SNR, and the transients are removed by using matched filter followed by band pass filter (0029).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Mahfouz ‘135 to include the features of Patil ‘006 in order to reduce noise and increase SNR.
Claim(s) 10, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahfouz ‘135 in view of Tsushima (US 2018/0199918, hereinafter Tsushima ‘918).
In re claim 10, Mahfouz ‘135 fails to teach wherein the image processing further comprises determining a direction of the target relative to the transducer array based on the identified target.
Tsushima ‘918 teaches wherein the image processing further comprises determining a direction of the target relative to the transducer array based on the identified target (figs. 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20; 0089-0093, 0142-0143, 0155-0161, 0170, 0186, 0196, 0199, 0217).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Mahfouz ‘135 to include the features of Tsushima ‘503 in order to ensure delay in transmission is correctly obtain so that high quality images with high resolution and low noise can be obtained.
In re claim 13, Tsushima ‘918 teaches wherein a pitch and/or volume of the audible tone varies according to the location of the target (0055, 0067, 0155, 0177, 0207).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, ANNE M 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights