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 Amendment
The amendment of 03/16/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 2, 7-9, 11, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1-19 are currently pending in the application with claim 1 being independent.
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 1-19 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 the limitation "each flexible circuit board" in line 3. It is not clear what is the relationship between the recited “each flexible circuit board unit” and “a plurality of flexible circuit boards” recited in the claim. As a result, the claim is considered to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the signal wire" in line 2. It is not clear what is the relationship between the recited “the signal wire” and “signal wires” recited claim 1. As a result, the claim is considered to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used.
Claims 2-6, 8--19 depend upon indefinite claim 1 and are considered to be indefinite as well due to their dependency.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0157732) hereinafter “Lee” in view of Tsuruta (WO 2018/230502) hereinafter “Tsuruta” and Hasegawa et al. (JP 2001093353) hereinafter “Hasegawa”.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an intracardiac ultrasound probe, [see abstract and [0039] of Lee disclosing the use of the ultrasound probe in intracardiac applications)] comprising:
a multielement acoustic head unit [see [0045]; transducer assembly 24 includes an array of transducer elements] and a flexible circuit board unit [interconnect layers 40], wherein the flexible circuit board unit comprises a plurality of flexible circuit boards; [see [0051]; the plurality of flexible interconnects make the interconnect layers 40]; wherein each flexible circuit board houses a plurality of signal traces for a corresponding plurality of elements of the multielement acoustic head unit, :[see [0049] disclosing that each of the interconnect layers 40 include a plurality of conductive elements 42 to facilitate coupling to a transducer array] and each flexible circuit board comprise
a first connecting part laid on the multielement acoustic head unit [interconnect 190; see FIG. 16 and [0071] of Lee; see [0049]; the transducer is a transducer array (i.e. it is multielement)],
an intermediate connecting part for wiring out element signals from the multielement acoustic head unit, [horizontal layers 194 are the plurality of interconnect layers that form the intermediate connecting part] and
a second connecting part provided with solder pads, [see FIG. 12; interconnect section including the solder pads 156/170; see [0067]-[0068]]
wherein the flex circuit boards are connected with the signal wires of the multi-wire cable to transmit the element signals from the multielement acoustic head unit to an intermediate connector. [probe cable 160; see [0068] and FIG. 13; cable 160 could be a multi wire ribbon cable]
Lee does not disclose that the wire connecting the circuit boards to a connector could be multi-core coaxial cable and that the width of the second connecting part is extended in a width direction to be at least to twice a width of the first connecting part, the plurality of signal traces are split into two groups in which adjacent traces are spread out with increased separation as the signal traces run dismally towards the solder pads, and a gap is placed between the two groups for folding of the flexible circuit board at the second connecting part when the flexible circuit board is soldered with signal wires a of a multi-core coaxial cable through the solder pads;
Tsuruta, directed towards a connector cable for an ultrasound head [see abstract of Tsuruta] further disclose that the wire connecting the circuit boards to a connector could be multi-core coaxial cable [see FIG. 3 and page 7, three last paragraphs of the page]
Hasegawa, directed towards a connector cable for an ultrasound probe [see abstract of Hasegawa] further discloses that the width of the second connecting part is extended in a width direction to be at least twice a width of the first connecting part, [see page 7, second full paragraph disclosing that the width of the second connecting part 112 is larger than the connection part (M>L); see FIG 6 shows the width of the connecting portion 106 is in fact twice the width of the connecting pat 107B], the plurality of signal traces are split into two groups [see page 2, [0004]-[0005] discloses soldering for providing connection between the signals; since Lee reference discloses solder pads 156 for each section of the second connecting part, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that each group would have their own solder pads which are then located parallel to each other; further Lee discloses ground pads 224 at end of the interconnects [see [0076] and FIG. 19 of Lee] , and a gap is placed between the two groups for folding of the flexible circuit board after the flexible circuit board at the second connecting part when the flexible circuit board is soldered with signal wires of a multi-core cable through the solder pads. [see page 3, [0011]-[0017] in page 4 disclosing folding of the flexible circuit boards and a gap in between; also see FIG. 6 of Hasegawa]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to ribbon cable of in the design of lee such that it is instead a multi-core coaxial cable according to the teachings of Tsuruta in order to provide a multiplicity of coaxial cable for better connection. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of connection cable with another and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR Rationale B).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta such that the width of the second connecting part is extended to twice or more of a width of the first connecting part or the intermediate connecting part, the solder pads are divided into two parallel groups, and each group comprises signal solder pads for soldering signal wires and ground solder pads for grounding; and a gap is reserved between the two groups, the gap is used for folding of the flexible circuit board after the flexible circuit board is soldered with cable wires through the solder pads, and two sides of the folded flexible circuit board without soldered cable wires are attached together according to the teachings of Hasegawa in order to improve flexibility, lightness, flatness and portability of the device [see [0001] of Hasegawa]
Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa does not expressly disclose wherein adjacent traces are spread out with increased separation as the signal traces run dismally towards the solder pads. However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to spread out the signal traces in the intermediate section so that they have increased separation as they run dismally towards the solder pads since such a modification would involved only a change in the design of the arrangement of the trances. The specification does not provide any advantage fro such an arrangement over the parallel tracing and it has been held that mere rearranging of parts placement with respect to each other (increased separation vs. parallel) would involve only routine skill in the art absent any reason or advantages mentioned in the specification. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Regarding claim 2, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Hasegawa further discloses that each group of the two groups comprises signal solder pads for soldering the signal wires and ground solder pads for grounding; and two sides of the folded flexible circuit board without soldered cable wires are attached together.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa further such that each group of the two groups comprises signal solder pads for soldering the signal wires and ground solder pads for grounding; and two sides of the folded flexible circuit board without soldered cable wires are attached together according to the teachings of Hasegawa in order to improve flexibility, lightness, flatness and portability of the device [see [0001] of Hasegawa]
Regarding claim 3, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Hasegawa further discloses that the length of the second connecting part is extended, [see page 7, second full paragraph disclosing that the width of the second connecting part 112 is larger than the connection part (M>L)] the solder pads are divided into two groups in parallel in a length direction, and each group comprises signal solder pads for soldering signal wires and ground solder pads for grounding; [see page 2, [0004]-[0005] discloses soldering for providing connection between the signals; since Lee reference discloses solder pads 156 for each section of the second connecting part, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that each group would have their own solder pads which are then located parallel to each other; further Lee discloses ground pads 224 at end of the interconnects [see [0076] and FIG. 19 of Lee] and a gap is reserved between the two groups, the two groups are connected through the extended connecting part, the extended connecting part is not provided with solder pads and used for folding of the flexible circuit board after the flexible circuit board is soldered with wires through the solder pads, [see page 3, [0011]-[0017] in page 4 disclosing folding of the flexible circuit boards and a gap in between; also see FIG. 6 of Hasegawa] and the folded extended connecting part partially covers the signal solder pad [see FIG. 6; when the two sections are folded, the folded parts would cover the solder pads which are located on each flexible circuit part]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa further such that the length of the second connecting part is extended, the solder pads are divided into two groups in parallel in a length direction, and each group comprises signal solder pads for soldering signal wires and ground solder pads for grounding; and a gap is reserved between the two groups, the two groups are connected through the extended connecting part, the extended connecting part is not provided with solder pads and used for folding of the flexible circuit board after the flexible circuit board is soldered with wires through the solder pads, and the folded extended connecting part partially covers the signal solder pad according to the teachings of Hasegawa in order to improve flexibility, lightness, flatness and portability of the device [see [0001] of Hasegawa]
Regarding claim 4, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 3 [see rejection of claim 3]
Lee further discloses that a tail end of the flexible circuit board is provided with common ground solder pads which are perpendicular to the signal solder pad [see FIG. 19; the ground pads 224 are perpendicular to the cross section of the flexible circuits and are therefore perpendicular to the solder pads] and the ground solder pad and spaced at certain intervals, and are used for common grounding of multi-core coaxial wire shielding layers; Lee discloses ground pads 224 at end of the interconnects [see [0076] and FIG. 19 of Lee]
Hasegawa further discloses that and two groups of common ground solder pads are provided, and a gap is formed between the two groups of common ground solder pads for folding after the wire shielding layers are soldered. [see page 3, [0011]-[0017] in page 4 disclosing folding of the flexible circuit boards and a gap in between; also see FIG. 6 of Hasegawa; therefore, since Lee discloses solder pads for each section as it can be seen in FIG. 12; interconnect section including the solder pads 156/170; see [0067]-[0068]], it is obvious to an ordinarily skilled in the art that since the flexible circuit board is divided in two section, each section would have solder pads with a gap in between ]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta such that two groups of common ground solder pads are provided, and a gap is formed between the two groups of common ground solder pads for folding after the wire shielding layers are soldered according to the teachings of Hasegawa in order to improve flexibility, lightness, flatness and portability of the device [see [0001] of Hasegawa]
Regarding claim 5, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 2 [see rejection of claim 2]
Lee further discloses that a length of each flexible circuit board in the flexible circuit board unit is different, [see FIG. 3 and [0067]; the interconnect layers are configured to have staggered lengths] and a length difference region between the flexible circuit boards is configured for arrangement of solder pads and accommodation of wires. [see [0067] and FIG. 12; solder pads 156 of the conductive elements 152]
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Lee in view of Tsuruta discloses a metal shielding layer [layer 216b; see FIG. 6] is arranged at the outermost layer of all coaxial cables after combination; the metal shielding layer at the outmost of all coaxial cables is grounded [see page 8, last two paragraphs of the page] to form two faraday cages for better electromagnetic shielding [this is a functional use limitation and does not have patentable weight. Further the structure in Tsuruta is capable of performing the shielding and forming faraday cage]
Hasegawa further disclose a metal shielding mesh is arranged outside each coaxial cable, and the metal shielding mesh outside each coaxial cable is grounded to form two faraday cages for better electromagnetic shielding [see FIG. 8 and page 2 [0002]-[0004] of Hasagawa disclosing a metal mesh 804 to shield each individual cable in the multicore coaxial cable]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta such that a metal shielding mesh is arranged outside each coaxial cable, and the metal shielding mesh outside each coaxial cable is grounded to form two faraday cages for better electromagnetic shielding according to the teachings of Hasegawa in order to provide a shield for the signals being transmitted [see [0002]-[0003] of Hasegawa]
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 6 [see rejection of claim 6]
Lee further discloses that the ground solder pad is configured to connect to the signal wire or the shielding layer. [see FIG. 19, the other end of the ground solder pads connect to the signal wires of the flexible circuit; see [0076]]
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Lee further discloses an intracardiac ultrasound catheter system, [see abstract and [0039] of Lee disclosing the use of the ultrasound probe in intracardiac applications)] comprising the ultrasound probe according to claim 1,[see rejection of claim 1] an ultrasound catheter [catheter based probe 12; see [0041] of Lee], a control handle, [handle 20; see FIG. 2 fand [0044] of Lee] and an intermediate connector [it is inherent that the cable connecting to the imaging system 15 would have some sort of connector; see FIG. 1 and [0043] of Lee] wherein one end of the ultrasound catheter is connected to the ultrasound probe, [see FIG. 2 and [0044]; the transducer is located at the distal end of the catheter] and inside the catheter accommodates the flexible circuit board unit of the ultrasound probe that lead out the ultrasound probe array element signals [see FIG. 12 of Lee], and a multicore coaxial cable to connect the muti-array element signals from the flexible circuit board unit, [see [0050] of Lee] the other end of the ultrasound catheter is connected to the control handle, [see FIG. 2 and [0044]] and a cable goes through the handle to the other end of the control handle to connect to the intermediate connector, and the intermediate connector is configured to connect to a system end. [see FIG. 2 and [0050] of Lee]
Tsuruta further disclose that the wire connecting the circuit boards to a connector could be multi-core coaxial cable [see FIG. 3 and page 7, three last paragraphs of the page]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to ribbon cable of in the design of lee such that it is instead a multi-core coaxial cable according to the teachings of Tsuruta in order to provide a multiplicity of coaxial cable for better connection. Further, doing so would have been a simple substitution of one type of connection cable with another and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR Rationale B).
Regarding claim 14, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1]
Tsuruta, further discloses that the ultrasound catheter is connected to the ultrasound probe by sleeving a cylindrical connecting unit of the ultrasound probe, and a diameter of the cylindrical connecting unit is smaller than a diameter of a housing of the acoustic head unit of the ultrasound probe. [see FIG. 3 and page 7, fourth and fifth paragraphs disclosing a fitting portion 214a between the ultrasound head and the rest of the device, wherein the diameter of the fitting portion is smaller than the housing of the ultrasound]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa further such that the ultrasound catheter is connected to the ultrasound probe by sleeving a cylindrical connecting unit of the ultrasound probe, and a diameter of the cylindrical connecting unit is smaller than a diameter of a housing of the acoustic head unit of the ultrasound probe according to the teachings of Tsuruta in order to attach the housing of the ultrasound to the tube of the catheter unit [see page 7, fifth paragraph of Tsuruta] Doing so would have been applying a connection method of Tsuruta to a device of Lee as modified by Tsuruta ready for improvement which would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled in the art. (KSR Rationale C)
Regarding claim 15, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 3 [see rejection of claim 3]
Lee further discloses that a length of each flexible circuit board in the flexible circuit board unit is different, [see FIG. 3 and [0067]; the interconnect layers are configured to have staggered lengths] and a length difference region between the flexible circuit boards is configured for arrangement of solder pads and accommodation of wires. [see [0067] and FIG. 12; solder pads 156 of the conductive elements 152]
Regarding claim 16, Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses an intracardiac ultrasound catheter system, [see abstract and [0039] of Lee disclosing the use of the ultrasound probe in intracardiac applications)] comprising: the ultrasound probe according to claim 1, [see rejection of claim 2].
Lee further discloses an intracardiac ultrasound catheter system, [see abstract and [0039] of Lee disclosing the use of the ultrasound probe in intracardiac applications)] comprising the ultrasound probe according to claim 1,[see rejection of claim 1] an ultrasound catheter [catheter based probe 12; see [0041] of Lee], a control handle, [handle 20; see FIG. 2 fand [0044] of Lee] and an intermediate connector [it is inherent that the cable connecting to the imaging system 15 would have some sort of connector; see FIG. 1 and [0043] of Lee] wherein one end of the ultrasound catheter is connected to the ultrasound probe, [see FIG. 2 and [0044]; the transducer is located at the distal end of the catheter] and inside the catheter accommodates the flexible circuit board unit of the ultrasound probe that lead out the ultrasound probe array element signals [see FIG. 12 of Lee], and a multicore coaxial cable to connect the muti-array element signals from the flexible circuit board unit, [see [0050] of Lee] the other end of the ultrasound catheter is connected to the control handle, [see FIG. 2 and [0044]] and a cable goes through the handle to the other end of the control handle to connect to the intermediate connector, and the intermediate connector is configured to connect to a system end. [see FIG. 2 and [0050] of Lee]
Regarding claim 17, Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses an intracardiac ultrasound catheter system, [see abstract and [0039] of Lee disclosing the use of the ultrasound probe in intracardiac applications)] comprising the ultrasound probe according to claim 3, [see rejection of claim 3]
Lee further discloses an ultrasound catheter [catheter based probe 12; see [0041] of Lee], a control handle, [handle 20; see FIG. 2 fand [0044] of Lee] and an intermediate connector [it is inherent that the cable connecting to the imaging system 15 would have some sort of connector; see FIG. 1 and [0043] of Lee] wherein one end of the ultrasound catheter is connected to the ultrasound probe, [see FIG. 2 and [0044]; the transducer is located at the distal end of the catheter] and inside the catheter accommodates the flexible circuit board unit of the ultrasound probe that lead out the ultrasound probe array element signals [see FIG. 12 of Lee], and a multicore coaxial cable to connect the muti-array element signals from the flexible circuit board unit, [see [0050] of Lee] the other end of the ultrasound catheter is connected to the control handle, [see FIG. 2 and [0044]] and a cable goes through the handle to the other end of the control handle to connect to the intermediate connector, and the intermediate connector is configured to connect to a system end. [see FIG. 2 and [0050] of Lee]
Claims 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0157732) hereinafter “Lee” in view of Tsuruta (WO 2018/230502) hereinafter “Tsuruta” and Hasegawa et al. (JP 2001093353) hereinafter “Hasegawa” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Taylor et al. (US Publication NO. 2004/0204650) hereinafter “Taylor”.
Regarding claim 9, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8]
Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa does not expressly discloses that the connector wires first pass through a magnetic ring to be soldered to the intermediate connector, and the intermediate connector can then be plugged into the system end.
Taylor, directed towards an ultrasound probe [see abstract of Taylor] further discloses that the connector wires first pass through a magnetic ring to be soldered to the intermediate connector, and the intermediate connector can then be plugged into the system end. [see [0094] and FIG. 20; magnetic coupler ring 500 and claims 1-2]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa such that the connector wires first pass through a magnetic ring to be soldered to the intermediate connector, and the intermediate connector can then be plugged into the system end according to the teachings of Yang in order to diminish any electromagnetic interference with the signal passing through.
Regarding claim 10 Lee in view of Tsuruta, Hasegawa and Taylor discloses all the limitations of claim 9 [see rejection of claim 9]
Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa and Taylor further disclose both front and back sides of the circuit board of the intermediate connector are provided with metal shielding covers. [see page 8, first 7 lines of the page disclosing a shielding woven fabric 116 in Hasegawa]
Regarding claim 11, Lee in view of Tsuruta, Hasegawa and Taylor discloses all the limitations of claim 10 [see rejection of claim 10]
Lee in view of Tsuruta, Hasegawa, and Taylor further disclose that the flexible circuit board unit and a connector are externally sleeved with a first layer of heat shrinkable tube, [216d is a heat shrinkable tube; see FIG. 8 and page 9, paragraph before last] the first layer of heat shrinkable tube is further wrapped with a metal shielding layer or a metal mesh, [voltage tube 216 e; See FIG. 8 and page 9, last paragraph of the page] and the metal shielding layer or the metal mesh is connected to a shielding cover at an outer layer of the connector through wires. [see page 8, last 2 paragraphs disclosing connecting the coaxial wires to the outer shield layer 216; the examiner notes that it is indefinite and unclear what is “outer layer of the connector” actually refers to, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used]
Regarding claim 12, Lee in view of Tsuruta, Hasegawa and Taylor discloses all the limitations of claim 11 [see rejection of claim 11]
Lee in view of Tsuruta, Hasegawa, and Taylor further disclose a second layer of heat shrinkable tube is arranged outside the metal shielding layer or the metal mesh. [see page 11, first paragraph, covering tube 216f is the second heat shrinkable layer]
Claim 13, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2007/0157732) hereinafter “Lee” in view of Tsuruta (WO 2018/230502) hereinafter “Tsuruta” and Hasegawa et al. (JP 2001093353) hereinafter “Hasegawa” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Yang et al. (CN 102908189B) hereinafter “Yang”.
Regarding claim 13, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8]
Lee as modified by Tsuruta does not expressly discloses that the control handle controls the ultrasound probe tip to bend in four spatially orthogonal directions through metal or nylon guide wires embedded in the ultrasound catheter.
Yang further discloses that the control handle controls the ultrasound probe tip to bend in four spatially orthogonal directions through metal or nylon guide wires embedded in the ultrasound catheter. [see FIG. 34 and page 36, first and second paragraph disclosing bending of the probe in 4 directions using guidewires]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa further such that the control handle controls the ultrasound probe tip to bend in four spatially orthogonal directions through metal or nylon guide wires embedded in the ultrasound catheter according to the teachings of Yang in order to allow for bending of the ultrasound probe for better imaging. Doing so would have been applying a known method of bending the distal tip of the ultrasound images according to the teachings of Yang to the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR rationale C)
Regarding claim 18, Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16]
Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa does not expressly disclose that the control handle controls the ultrasound probe tip to bend in four spatially orthogonal directions through metal or nylon guide wires embedded in the ultrasound catheter.
Yang further discloses that the control handle controls the ultrasound probe tip to bend in four spatially orthogonal directions through metal or nylon guide wires embedded in the ultrasound catheter. [see FIG. 34 and page 36, first and second paragraph disclosing bending of the probe in 4 directions using guidewires]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa such that the control handle controls the ultrasound probe tip to bend in four spatially orthogonal directions through metal or nylon guide wires embedded in the ultrasound catheter according to the teachings of Yang in order to allow for bending of the ultrasound probe for better imaging. Doing so would have been applying a known method of bending the distal tip of the ultrasound images according to the teachings of Yang to the design of Lee as modified by Tsuruta and Hasegawa and would have been obvious to try by an ordinarily skilled in the art (KSR rationale C)
Regarding claim 19, Lee in view of Tsuruta, Hasegawa and Yang discloses all the limitations of claim 18 [see rejection of claim 18]
Lee in view of Tsuruta and Hasegawa further discloses that both front and back sides of the circuit board of the intermediate connector are provided with metal shielding covers. [see page 8, first 7 lines of the page disclosing a shielding woven fabric 116 of Hasegawa]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 103
With regards to the amendments to claim 1, the applicant has argued that none of the prior art of record teach the claim. In particular, the applicant has argued that does not teach “the second connecting part is extended in a width direction to be at least twice the width of the intermediate connecting part” because the element 106A/B of Hasegawa which was taken to be equivalent of the second connecting part does not include solder pads, and therefore could not be taken to be equivalent of the second connecting part.
In response, the examiner notes that the limitation requiring the second connecting part to have solder pads is disclosed in the primary reference Lee. Hasegawa was NOT used to show solder pads in the second connecting part. Hasegawa was merely used to show that the width of the second connecting part is twice the width of the intermediate section. The applicant is advised to clarify each of the three “first connecting element”, “second connecting element” and “the intermediate connecting part” so that their claims would be differentiated from the prior art of record.
The applicant has further argued that none of the references teach that “adjacent traces are spread out with increased separation as the signal traces run dismally towards the solder pads”.
In response, the examiner notes that the specification does not provide any advantage for such a design, and therefore, the limitation has been considered to be obvious as being a mere design choice. The applicant is advised to point out to any disclosure that specifically points out to advantages of such a spread in order to overcome the rejection.
Further, the applicant has disclosed that Hasegawa does not disclose a gap placed between the two groups for folding”
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that as it is clearly shown in FIG. 6 of Hasegawa, gap 118 exists between the two groups allowing for folding. [see page 3, [0011]-[0017] in page 4 disclosing folding of the flexible circuit boards and a gap in between; also see FIG. 6 of Hasegawa]
Conclusion
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights