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 1 and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, lines 20, 25, and 30 should all include a semicolon at the end of the line.
Claim 9, line 9, “wherein the said” should be changed to --wherein said--.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 5, 7, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Shimizu et al. (JP 6171217, machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Tyler discloses an ultrasonic plant growth system (Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 22-40) comprising: a power source (provided from controller (150); one or more transducers (110, 110a, 110b) operable to emit a plurality of ultrasonic sound waves to impact on one or more surfaces of a plant (col. 7, lines 32-48, acoustically coupled to the external surface (192) of body (190) which can be a plant); a controller (controller (150), computer system (1300)) coupled to the power source and the one or more transducers (Figs. 1, 12) and comprising memory (1304) and a processing unit (1302), the memory storing sonic instructions and sonic data, and the processing unit configured to execute the sonic instructions to: access sonic data to identify at least one sweeping frequency function indicative of at least one frequency sweep range and at least one frequency sweep rate (col. 2, lines 22-40, col. 6, line 19 – col. 7, lines 25, col. 32, lines 32-55 teach the sweeping of the frequency, reference a frequency range and rate); and wherein the at least one sweeping frequency function is further based on one or more frequencies at which one or more plant surfaces are vibrated at a plurality of wavelengths (col. 15, lines 53-62, col. 16, lines 5-52, teach standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated”), wherein at least one of the plurality of wavelengths is selected to match a standing wave resonance frequency or harmonic standing frequency for the one or more plant surfaces (col. 15, lines 53-62, col. 16, lines 5-52, see Fig. 27C, showing standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated” at as one example of the waves that can be provided); identify a first frequency sweep range and a first frequency sweep rate according to the at least one sweeping function (col. 6, line 19 – col. 7, lines 25, col. 8, lines 45-54, col. 15, lines 40-52, col. 32, lines 32-55, col. 36, lines 4-19, col. 36, line 57 – col. 37, line 24, a range and rate is identified among the examples listed from computer instructions); identify a first ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range (col. 2, lines 38-40 teach the frequency range); generate a first signal indicative of the first ultrasonic wave frequency (col. 8, lines 45-54); provide the first signal to the one or more transducers (Fig. 3, step (320)); determine that a first time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed (col. 7, lines 1-25 teaches a list of timeframes to use); identify a second ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range (col. 2, lines 38-40 teach the frequency range); generate a second signal indicative of the second ultrasonic wave frequency (col. 8, lines 45-54); provide the second signal to the one or more transducers (Figs. 3, 27A-28F, alternating); determine that a second time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed (col. 7, lines 1-25 teaches a list of timeframes to use).
Tyler does not explicitly disclose the at least one sweeping frequency function is based on a plant type and distance from a plant surface at which the one or more transducers is positioned; the processing unit configured to execute the sonic instructions to: identify a third ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range; generate a third signal indicative of the third ultrasonic wave frequency; provide the third signal to the one or more transducers; determine that a third time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed; and determine that the third ultrasonic wave frequency is a final frequency of the first frequency sweep range.
Shimizu et al., like Tyler, teaches an ultrasonic plant growth system (1) and further teaches wherein the at least one sweeping frequency function is based on a plant type and distance from a plant surface at which the one or more transducers is positioned (paragraphs [0030]-[0031] of the machine translation teaches that the data is based on a plant type and distance from the plant surface at which the one or more transducers are positioned); and wherein a frequency function is further based on one or more frequencies at which one or more plant surfaces are vibrated at (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation), the wavelength is selected to match a standing wave resonance frequency or harmonic standing wave frequency for the one or more plant surfaces (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation); and a processing unit (paragraphs [0018]-[0019] of the machine translation teaches (10)/(20) provide a processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler to the function based on the plant type and distance as taught by Shimizu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more effectively vibrates the plants (Shimizu et al.: paragraph [0012] of the machine translation).
Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. does not explicitly teach identify a third ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range; generate a third signal indicative of the third ultrasonic wave frequency provide the third signal to the one or more transducers; determine that a third time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed; and determine that the third ultrasonic wave frequency is a final frequency of the first frequency sweep range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler modified by Shimizu et al. to include a third ultrasonic wave frequency as a way to provide further modifications, and additionally it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried an additional round of frequencies to see if there is any further improvement over two rounds. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding additional frequencies would provide results that would reflect growth changes to the plant.
Regarding claim 5, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches (references to Tyler) wherein a user may provide input to control the at least one sweeping frequency function (col. 34, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 7, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. teaches the system of claim 1, and teaches (references to Tyler) wherein the frequency sweep range comprises frequencies between about 20kHz and 100kHz (col. 6, lines 45-46 teach a range between about 0.20 MHz and 0.1 MHz which is within the range recited).
Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. does not explicitly teach between about 22kHz and 134kHz. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system frequency sweep range to include a narrower range for preciseness. Further it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 20, Tyler discloses a method to promote plant growth using ultrasonic sound waves by a system (Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 22-40) comprising one or more transducers (110, 110a, 110b) and a controller (controller (150), computer system (1300)) comprising memory (1304) storing sonic instructions and sonic data and a processing unit (1302) configured to execute the sonic instructions, the method comprising: accessing, by the processing unit, sonic data to identify at least one sweeping frequency function indicative of at least one frequency sweep range and at least one frequency sweep rate (col. 2, lines 22-40, col. 6, line 19 – col. 7, lines 25, col. 32, lines 32-55 teach the sweeping of the frequency, reference a frequency range and rate); and wherein the at least one sweeping frequency function is further based on one or more frequencies at which one or more plant surfaces are vibrated at a plurality of wavelengths (paragraphs [0117] and [0119]-[0120], teach standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated”), wherein at least one of the plurality of wavelengths is selected to match a standing wave resonance frequency or harmonic standing frequency for the one or more plant surfaces (paragraphs [0117] and [0119]-[0120], see Fig. 27C, showing standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated” at as one example of the waves that can be provided); identifying, by the processing unit, a first frequency sweep range and a first frequency sweep rate according to the at least one sweeping function (col. 6, line 19 – col. 7, lines 25, col. 8, lines 45-54, col. 15, lines 40-52, col. 32, lines 32-55, col. 36, lines 4-19, col. 36, line 57 – col. 37, line 24, a range and rate is identified among the examples listed from computer instructions); identifying, by the processing unit, a first ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range (col. 2, lines 38-40 teach the frequency range); generating, by the processing unit, a first signal indicative of the first ultrasonic wave frequency providing, by the processing unit, the first signal to the one or more transducers (Fig. 3, step (320)); determining, by the processing unit, that a first time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed (col. 7, lines 1-25 teaches a list of timeframes to use); identifying, by the processing unit, a second ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range (col. 2, lines 38-40 teach the frequency range); generating, by the processing unit, a second signal indicative of the second ultrasonic wave frequency providing, by the processing unit, the second signal to the one or more transducers (Figs. 3, 27A-28F, alternating); determining, by the processing unit, that a second time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed (col. 7, lines 1-25 teaches a list of timeframes to use).
Tyler does not explicitly disclose the at least one sweeping frequency function is based on a plant type and distance from a plant surface at which the one or more transducers is positioned; identifying, by the processing unit, a third ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range; generating, by the processing unit, a third signal indicative of the third ultrasonic wave frequency providing, by the processing unit, the third signal to the one or more transducers; determining, by the processing unit, that a third time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed; and determining, by the processing unit, that the third ultrasonic wave frequency is a final frequency of the first frequency sweep range.
Shimizu et al., like Tyler, teaches an ultrasonic plant growth system (1) and further teaches wherein the at least one sweeping frequency function is based on a plant type and distance from a plant surface at which the one or more transducers is positioned (paragraphs [0030]-[0031] of the machine translation teaches that the data is based on a plant type and distance from the plant surface at which the one or more transducers are positioned); and wherein a frequency function is further based on one or more frequencies at which one or more plant surfaces are vibrated at (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation), the wavelength is selected to match a standing wave resonance frequency or harmonic standing wave frequency for the one or more plant surfaces (paragraph [0012] of the machine translation); and a processing unit (paragraphs [0018]-[0019] of the machine translation teaches (10)/(20) provide a processing unit).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler to the function based on the plant type and distance as taught by Shimizu et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to more effectively vibrates the plants (Shimizu et al.: paragraph [0012] of the machine translation).
Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. does not explicitly teach identify a third ultrasonic wave frequency that should be emitted by the one or more transducers based on the first frequency sweep range; generate a third signal indicative of the third ultrasonic wave frequency provide the third signal to the one or more transducers; determine that a third time period associated with the first frequency sweep rate has elapsed; and determine that the third ultrasonic wave frequency is a final frequency of the first frequency sweep range.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler modified by Shimizu et al. to include a third ultrasonic wave frequency as a way to provide further modifications, and additionally it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried an additional round of frequencies to see if there is any further improvement over two rounds. Further, it has been held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F. 2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). Adding additional frequencies would provide results that would reflect growth changes to the plant.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Shimizu et al. (JP 6171217, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goodson (US 2006/0006761).
Regarding claim 3, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. teaches the system of claim 1. Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the at least one sweeping frequency function is indicative of a predetermined frequency sweep range and a predetermined frequency sweep rate.
Goodson, like Tyler, teaches an ultrasonic system, and further teaches wherein the at least one sweeping frequency function is indicative of a predetermined frequency sweep range and a predetermined frequency sweep rate (paragraphs [0003] and [0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. to provide a predetermined frequency sweep range and a predetermined frequency sweep rate as taught by Goodson, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide a set range and rate to pull from when alternating various frequencies based on the plant and distance from the transducers for a more consistent approach that is repeatable for increased efficiency.
Regarding claim 4, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. and Goodson teaches the system of claim 3, and teaches (references to Goodson) wherein the predetermined frequency sweep rate comprises a predetermined duration for each frequency within the frequency sweep range (paragraph [0022]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Shimizu et al. (JP 6171217, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Engle et al. (US 2019/0127240).
Regarding claim 6, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. teaches the system of claim 1. However, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of ultrasonic sound waves comprises a wavelength equal to one half a wavelength of a fundamental frequency of the one or more surfaces of the plant.
Engle et al. teaches an optimal absorption treatment system and teaches wherein at least one of the plurality of ultrasonic sound waves comprises a wavelength equal to one half a wavelength of a fundamental frequency of the one or more surfaces (paragraph [0011] teaches that it is well known to use a fundamental frequency and a second harmonic frequency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. to include a wavelength equal to one half a wavelength of a fundamental frequency as taught by Engle et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a well-known means of providing frequencies for providing optimal absorption of energy (Engle et al.: paragraph [0011]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Shimizu et al. (JP 6171217, machine translation attached) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Charnoe (US 4055915).
Regarding claim 8, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. teaches the system of claim 1. However, Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the sonic instructions further comprise instructions for generating an ultrasonic wave which, when emitted by the transducer, comprises a sound pressure level of at least 80 dB when the distance from the plant surface is at least 30 cm.
Charnoe teaches a sonic plant growth system wherein an ultrasonic wave which, when emitted by the transducer, comprises a sound pressure level of 70 to 120 dB when the distance from the plant surface is at least 30 cm (col. 3, lines 9-25, teaches a range that is effective at the point of the plant, which can be at least 30 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tyler as modified by Shimizu et al. to include a range of sound pressure level to be at least 80 dB, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide advantageous effect on the growth of the plant before the point of diminishing returns (Charnoe: col. 3, lines 9-25). Further it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Claims 9-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Redding (WO 2013/184169).
Regarding claim 9, Tyler discloses a method for promoting plant growth (Fig. 1, col. 2, lines 22-40), comprising: subjecting one or more surfaces of a plant for a duration to ultrasonic sound waves (col. 7, lines 32-48, acoustically coupled to the external surface (192) of body (190) which can be a plant) through at least one frequency sweep range and at least one frequency sweep rate (col. 2, lines 22-40, col. 6, line 19 – col. 7, lines 25, col. 32, lines 32-55 teach the sweeping of the frequency, reference a frequency range and rate), wherein the at least one frequency sweep range is based on one or more frequencies at which one or more plant surfaces are vibrated at a plurality of wavelengths (col. 15, lines 53-62, col. 16, lines 5-52, teach standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated”), and wherein at least one of the plurality of wavelengths is selected to match a standing wave resonance frequency or harmonic standing frequency for the one or more plant surfaces (col. 15, lines 53-62, col. 16, lines 5-52, see Fig. 27C, showing standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated” at as one example of the waves that can be provided); whereby the surfaces of said plant are vibrated generating standing wave resonance (col. 8, line 58 – col. 9, line 8); wherein the said at least one frequency sweep range is capable of generating standing wave resonances or harmonic standing wave frequencies at a plurality of wavelengths while said plants grows (col. 15, lines 53-62, col. 16, lines 5-52, see Fig. 27C, showing standing wave resonance frequency and/or harmonic standing frequency as part of the plurality of wavelengths that the plant is vibrated “stimulated” at as one example of the waves that can be provided).
Tyler does not explicitly disclose whereby the surfaces of the said plant are vibrated generating increasing turgor pressure in the surfaces of said plant.
Redding teaches an ultrasonic plant growth system whereby the surfaces of the said plant are vibrated generating increasing turgor pressure in the surfaces of said plant (Table 1, abstract, teaches the increase of water absorption, which would increase turgor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tyler with the increasing turgor pressure as taught by Redding, with a reasonable expectation of success, due to the use of ultrasonic wavelengths that allow for the increase in water absorption.
Regarding claim 10, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9, and teaches (references to Tyler) further comprising using a controller (controller (150), computer system (1300)) to determine the at least one frequency sweep range and the at least one frequency sweep rate (col. 2, lines 22-40, col. 6, line 19 – col. 7, lines 25, col. 32, lines 32-55 teach the sweeping of the frequency, reference a frequency range and rate).
Regarding claim 11, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9, and teaches (references to Redding) wherein the at least one frequency sweep range and the at least one frequency sweep rate are predetermined (p. 18, rate and range predetermined).
Regarding claim 12, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9, and teaches (references to Tyler) wherein a user may provide input to control the at least one frequency sweep range and the at least one frequency sweep rate (col. 34, lines 44-47).
Regarding claim 14, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9, and teaches (references to Tyler) the method consisting of subjecting one or more surfaces of a plant to ultrasonic sound waves through at least one frequency sweep range comprising frequencies between about 20kHz and 100kHz (col. 6, lines 45-46 teach a range between about 0.20 MHz and 0.1 MHz which is within the range recited).
Tyler as modified by Redding does not explicitly teach between about 22kHz and 134kHz. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system frequency sweep range to include a narrower range for preciseness. Further it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 16, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9, and teaches (references to Tyler) wherein the at least one frequency sweep and the at least one frequency sweep rate is cycled for a predetermined duration of a first cycle (col. 7, lines 1-25 teaches a duration range for a cycle).
Regarding claim 17, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 16, and teaches (references to Tyler) wherein first cycle duration of the at least one frequency sweep is between about 1 second and 24 hours (col. 7, lines 1-25 teaches a duration that is within the cited range).
Regarding claim 18, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 16, and teaches (references to Redding) wherein the at least one frequency sweep rate is varied during the first cycle (Fig. 5, varied rates).
Regarding claim 19, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 16, and teaches (references to Tyler) wherein the at least one frequency sweep range and the at least one frequency sweep rate are repeated for at least a second cycle (see Fig. 28B).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Redding (WO 2013/184169) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Engle et al. (US 2019/0127240).
Regarding claim 13, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9. However, Tyler as modified by Redding does not explicitly teach subjecting the one or more surfaces of the plant for a duration to ultrasonic sound waves comprising a wavelength equal to one-half a wavelength of a fundamental frequency of the one or more surfaces of the plant.
Engle et al. teaches an optimal absorption treatment system and teaches subjecting one or more surfaces for a duration to ultrasonic sound waves comprises a wavelength equal to one half a wavelength of a fundamental frequency of the one or more surfaces (paragraph [0011] teaches that it is well known to use a fundamental frequency and a second harmonic frequency).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tyler as modified by Redding to include a wavelength equal to one half a wavelength of a fundamental frequency as taught by Engle et al., with a reasonable expectation of success, as a well-known means of providing frequencies for providing optimal absorption of energy (Engle et al.: paragraph [0011]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tyler (US 8591419) in view of Redding (WO 2013/184169) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Charnoe (US 4055915).
Regarding claim 15, Tyler as modified by Redding teaches the method of claim 9. However, Tyler as modified by Redding does not explicitly teach wherein the ultrasonic sound waves applied to one or more surfaces of the plant comprises a sound pressure level of at least 80 dB when the distance from the plant surface is at least 30 cm.
Charnoe teaches a sonic plant growth system wherein an ultrasonic wave which, when emitted by the transducer, comprises a sound pressure level of 70 to 120 dB when the distance from the plant surface is at least 30 cm (col. 3, lines 9-25, teaches a range that is effective at the point of the plant, which can be at least 30 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Tyler as modified by Redding to include a range of sound pressure level to be at least 80 dB, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide advantageous effect on the growth of the plant before the point of diminishing returns (Charnoe: col. 3, lines 9-25). Further it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Schultheiss (US 7600343) and Holland (US 11700794) teach ultrasound systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARLY W. LYNCH whose telephone number is (571)272-5552. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30am-5:30pm, Eastern Time, alternate Friday.
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 M Poon can be reached at 571-272-6891. 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.
/CARLY W. LYNCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3643