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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Peyman reference does not teach a “receiver device that is adapted to commonly receive both ultrasound signals reflected from transmitted ultrasound waves and also to receive electroacoustic signals”. The Peyman references teaches of receiving electroacoustic images from an array of ultrasound receivers [0112] and also imaging the lesion with ultrasound imaging [0122]. The Peyman reference teaches the use of ultrasound based therapy to vibrate the tumor cels and “when exposed to pulses of electrical current with an adjustable signal frequency and voltage, an electroacoustic sound is created inside the body from the piezoelectric nanoparticles that can be recorded with a transducer. The signal is then amplified and forwarded to a processor to be converted to a 1D, 2D, or 3D image as an electroacoustic computed tomogram and ultrasound image of the structure, and the dye/medication is released under observation of the lesion as video-electroacoustic imaging” [0123]. “The signal is then amplified and forwarded to a processor so as to be converted to a 1D, 2D, or 3D image as an electroacoustic computed tomogram and ultrasound…” [0125]. The reference further teaches “while imaging the lesion with the ultrasound along with electroacoustic 2-D or 3-D images as an electroacoustic computed tomogram or in combination with another imaging modality such as MRI or CT-scan or PET-scan that defines the focal point of the focused compressive ultrasound in relationship with the other body's structures” [0139]. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Peyman reference teaches of receiving both ultrasound imaging and electroacoustic imaging signals where the electroacoustic signals are amplified relative to the ultrasound signals and combining the ultrasound and electroacoustic images. If the system and method as disclosed in the Peyman reference is adapted to generate both electroacoustic and ultrasound image signals with amplification of the electroacoustic signals, then under broadest reasonable interpretation, the system is adapted to receive both signals “commonly”.
The amended term “commonly” is broad and it is not clear if the ultrasound transducer is adapted to receive the ultrasound and electroacoustic signals simultaneously or there is a time delay or specific order or if there is a specific distinct configuration that enables the system to switch from receiving ultrasound signals and then receiving electroacoustic signals.
The claim language does not specify a order for receiving the two types of signals and how the configuration takes place to switch between the two modes of receiving the signals. As per the specification and dependent claims 3 and 4, “a two-dimensional ultrasound array transducer adapted to (a) transmitting ultrasound waves, (b) Receive ultrasound signal reflections from transmitted ultrasound waves and (c) receiving electro-acoustic signals generated from an electrical pulse generation device [0039] 206: A trigger sequencing logic device for switching the connection of the ultrasound transducer between ultrasound transmission/reception and electro-acoustic signal acquisition 208: An image combining device to receive and combine the results of the reconstructed EAT imaging unit 210 and the ultrasound unit 212” [0036-0040].
The current claim language recites “commonly receive both ultrasound…and also receive electroacoustic signals”. As stated previously, it is not clear if the “receiving” of the two signals is taking place at the same time or the order and the configuration as to how the “transducer” switches from receiving ultrasound to electroacoustic signals. It is suggested claims 1 and 11 be modified to provide further clarity to the “commonly receive” language to provide the specific configuration that is used to switch between the two modes and if there is a specific order in which the signals are received.
In view of the above observations and lack of additional specific arguments with respect to the references, the 103 Rejection is modified in view of the amendments and maintained below.
In view of the amendments the previous 112(b) rejection is withdrawn. However, in view of the amendments, a new 112(b) rejection is set forth below.
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 6 and 16 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.
Claim 1 recites “including a preamplification stage” in line 6. Claim 6 recites “a multi-channel pre-amplification stage” in line 4. If claim 6 is referring to the same “amplification stage” as claim 1, it is suggested that the antecedent basis be modified accordingly.
Claim 11 recites “amplifying the electroacoustic signals” in line 5. Claim 16 recites “amplifying the electroacoustic signal” in line 4. If claim 16 is referring to the same “amplifying process” as claim 11, it is not clear from the claim language if the “amplification” process is repeated twice in the claims or claim 16 is referring to a different amplification process from claim 11.
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) 1, 2, 11, and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyman (2021/0002338).
With respect to claims 1 and 11, Peyman teaches of a system and method for electroacoustic tomography that includes a device to receive electro-acoustic signals generated from an electrical pulse generation device or applying a pulsed electrical current using an electrical source at the site of the tumor to create an electroacoustic sound and recording the electroacoustic sound using a transducer to convert the electroacoustic sound to an electrical signal [0058]. Peyman teaches of an electroacoustic tomographic imaging unit to generate an electroacoustic image based on the electro-acoustic signals or producing an electroacoustic computed tomogram [0058]. Peyman teaches of an ultrasound imaging unit to generate an ultrasound image based on the received ultrasound signals or an ultrasonic imaging system [0101] and an image combining device to receive and combine the generated electroacoustic image and ultrasound image [0101, 0102] or a dual system imaging using the ultrasound imaging combined with electroacoustic imaging/photoacoustic imaging [0109-0112].
The Peyman references teaches of receiving electroacoustic images from an array of ultrasound receivers [0112] and also imaging the lesion with ultrasound imaging [0122]. The Peyman reference teaches the use of ultrasound based therapy to vibrate the tumor cels and “when exposed to pulses of electrical current with an adjustable signal frequency and voltage, an electroacoustic sound is created inside the body from the piezoelectric nanoparticles that can be recorded with a transducer. The signal is then amplified and forwarded to a processor to be converted to a 1D, 2D, or 3D image as an electroacoustic computed tomogram and ultrasound image of the structure, and the dye/medication is released under observation of the lesion as video-electroacoustic imaging” [0123]. “ The signal is then amplified and forwarded to a processor so as to be converted to a 1D, 2D, or 3D image as an electroacoustic computed tomogram and ultrasound…” [0125]. The reference further teaches “while imaging the lesion with the ultrasound along with electroacoustic 2-D or 3-D images as an electroacoustic computed tomogram or in combination with another imaging modality such as MRI or CT-scan or PET-scan that defines the focal point of the focused compressive ultrasound in relationship with the other body's structures” [0139]. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, the Peyman reference teaches of receiving both ultrasound imaging and electroacoustic imaging signals where the electroacoustic signals are amplified relative to the ultrasound signals and combining the ultrasound and electroacoustic images. If the system and method as disclosed in the Peyman reference is adapted to generate both electroacoustic and ultrasound image signals with amplification of the electroacoustic signals, then under broadest reasonable interpretation, the system is adapted to receive both signals “commonly”.
With respect to claims 2 and 12, Peyman teaches of a device adapted to generate an electrical field induced acoustic signal or pulses of electrical current generated by the battery with an adjustable signal frequency and voltage and an acoustic response produced by electrical stimulation [0159] and a device adapted to transmit ultrasound waves from an ultrasound transducer [0160].
Peyman does not teach of all the claimed elements in a single embodiment. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements from the different embodiments to ensure better diagnostic with respect to tumor cells indicating the presence of tumor in that area and reconstructing a full-body electroacoustic tomogram of the patient [0059].
Claim(s) 3-5 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyman in view of Kajiyama et al. (2020/0138415). Peyman does not explicitly teach of a trigger sequencing logic device for switching a connection of an ultrasound transducer. In a related field of endeavor Kajiyama et al. teach of an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus that includes an ultrasonic probe with transducer that perform electro-acoustic conversion on transmission pulses to form a transmission beam where the transmission/reception switching timing setting circuits setting transmission/reception switching timings at which ultrasonic wave are switched from transmission to reception independently for each of the plurality of transducers and a control circuit that controls the transmission/reception switching timings [0018]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Kajiyama et al. teach of performing switching such that the ultrasound signal and the electro-acoustic signal are received in different time windows with the transmission/reception switching timings [0088]. With respect to claim 5 and 15, Kajiyama et al. also teach of the ultrasound imaging device to receive ultrasound signals in an ultrasound reception window controlled by a flip-flop sequencing logic switch [0040, 0041]; an ultrasonic beamformer adapted to produce a series of radio frequency signals from the ultrasonic signals [0053] and an ultrasound image construction unit or imaging configuration adapted to produce the ultrasound image from the radio frequency signals [0025, 0028, 0053]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Kajiyama et al. to modify Peyman to reduce a virtual image due to transmission/reception switching noises in the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus [Kajiyama, 0019].
Claim(s) 6 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyman in view of Ishihara et al. (2013/0331699). Peyman teaches of collecting an electro-acoustic signal in response to an electrical pulse [0059], amplification stage adapted to amplify the electroacoustic signal [0058, 0110-0112] but does not teach of a filtering stage to process the amplified electroacoustic signal. In a related field of endeavor Ishihara et al. teach an ultrasound imaging apparatus and method for transmitting signal to multiple electro acoustic conversion elements for driving the electro acoustic conversion elements, allowing an ultrasound beam to be transmitted to a predetermined position of an imaging target, a receiver for allowing the multiple electroacoustic conversion elements to receive an echo signal of the ultrasound beam from the target to obtain a reception signal and a computing process to generate an image [0040]. Ishihara et al. teach of applying an amplifying process and a predetermined filtering process to the reception signal obtained from the reception beam signal [0066, 0089]. Peyman teaches of an electroacoustic image construction unit adapted to perform electro-acoustic imaging reconstruction and reconstructing a full-body electroacoustic tomogram of the patient [0059, 0091] or where the signal is amplified and forwarded to a processor in order to be converted to a 1D, 2D, or 3D image by electroacoustic computed tomography [0116]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Ishihara et al. to modify Peyman to ensure that the processor extracts the nonlinear components caused by the electro acoustic conversion element and transmission circuit and achieve tissue harmonic imaging [Ishihara, 0018].
Claim(s) 7, 8, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyman in view of Irisawa (2014/0121505). Peyman teaches of a combination of ultrasound and electroacoustic imaging [0091, 0118] but does not explicitly teach of superimposed image frames for display. In a related field of endeavor Irisawa teaches of obtaining image frames for display where ultrasound image based on a reflection wave of an ultrasonic wave projected by the electroacoustic transducer where a photoacoustic image and an ultrasonic image are captured simultaneously with superimposition of the ultrasonic image and the photoacoustic image [0076]. The combination of the references would therefore be able to provide a superimposed display of ultrasound image frames along with image frames from another modality such as electroacoustic imaging. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Irisawa to modify Peyman to provide a better understanding of the positional relationship between the treatment device and region of interest on display and reduce the risk if damage to the region of interest or blood vessel [Irisawa, 0003].
Claim(s) 9 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peyman in view of Zarafshani et al. (2019/0290903). Peyman does not teach of depicting electrical field energy distribution. In a similar field of endeavor Zarafshani et al. teach of a method for electroacoustic tomography including depicting electrical field energy distribution in real time [0023, 0024], enabling clear discrimination between irreversible electroporation zones and reversible electroporation zones during treatment [0126] including the phenomenon that the amplitude of acoustic waves generated by an electric field is proportional to the electrical energy deposition in tissue or where an increase in the intensity of the electric field increases the amplitude of the signal [0102, 0103], and after detecting the acoustic waves with ultrasound transducers [0026] constructing an image of the electric field distribution in real-time [0024-0028]. With respect to claim 10, Zarafshani et al. teach of enabling real-time ultrasound image-guided ablation that would include a needle placement [0111, 0126]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Zarafshani et al. to modify Peyman to effectively monitor electric field distribution by characterizing the influence of electric field and provide real-time, in situ monitoring of electroporation [0004-0006].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
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 BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797