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 with traverse of group I in the reply filed on 10/27/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “as to the doctrine of equivalents, an ASIC may be substantially equivalent to one or more processors.” This is found to be persuasive and all claims are examined on the merits.
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.
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) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wenger et al. (US 20190117956 A1) in view of MacDonald et al. (US 2019/0030372 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wenger et al. (‘956) teach a computer-implemented method for determining a transducer array layout plan (see abstract), comprising: determining, by one or more processors, a three-dimensional (3D) model of a portion of a subject's body; determining, by the one or more processors, a region-of-interest (ROI) within the 3D model of the portion of the subject's body (determining a volume, i.e. ROI, within a 3D model; see [0049]); determining, by the one or more processors and for each of a plurality of positions for a pair of transducer arrays, based on the 3D model, the ROI, and an anatomical restriction parameter, an electric field distribution map (see [0048]-[0049], [0056]); determining, by the one or more processors and for each combination of a plurality of combinations of two pairs of transducer arrays, based on the electric field distribution map, a plurality of dose metrics in the ROI (determining intensity, i.e. a dose metric; see [0066], [0069]); determining, by the one or more processors and for each of the one or more candidate transducer array layout plans, one or more adjusted candidate transducer array layout plans by adjusting a position or an orientation of one or more transducer arrays of the pair of transducer arrays (determining the layout map; see [0100]); determining, by the one or more processors and for each adjusted candidate transducer array layout plan, an adjusted dose metric in the ROI (making adjustments; see [0114]); and determining, by the one or more processors and based on the adjusted dose metric in the ROI, the transducer array layout plan from the adjusted candidate transducer array layout plans (making adjustments; see [0114]). Wenger et al. does not disclose wherein the plurality of pairs of positions satisfy an angular restriction between pairs of transducer arrays. However, in the same field of endeavor, MacDonald et al. (‘372) discloses a method for applying therapy to the brain (see abstract) wherein the restrictions for angular motion are taken into account when creating layout maps (see [0121]) in order to properly map the brain. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have taken the teaches of Wenger and modified them by having the pairs layout account for restrictions for angular motion, as taught and suggested by MacDonald, in order to properly map the brain.
Regarding claim 2, Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372) teach the method of claim 1, wherein the anatomical restriction parameter indicates one or more positions of a transverse plane of the ROI that should be excluded from use in determining the electric field distribution map (determining the layout map; see Wenger et al. [0100]).
Regarding claim 3, Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372) teach the method of claim 1, wherein the angular restriction parameter indicates an orthogonal angle between the plurality of pairs of transducer arrays (see MacDonald et al. [0121]).
Regarding claim 4, Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372) teach the method of claim 1, wherein the angular restriction parameter indicates a range of an angle between the plurality of pairs of transducer arrays (see MacDonald et al. [0121]).
Regarding claim 5, Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372) teach the method of 1, further comprising: determining, by the one or more processors and based on a center of the ROI, a plane that transverses the portion of the subject's body, wherein the plane comprises the plurality of pairs of positions for the pair of transducer arrays along a contour of the plane; and adjusting, by the one or more processors and based on the anatomical restriction parameter, one or more positions of the plurality of pairs of positions to generate a modified plane map (see Wenger et al. [0048]-[0049], [0056]).
Regarding claim 6, Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372) teach the method of 1, wherein the plurality of dose metrics are based on a simulated electric field generated for each combination of the plurality of combinations of two pairs of transducer arrays (determining intensity, i.e. a dose metric; see Wenger et al. [0066], [0069]).
Regarding claim 7, Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372) teach the method of claim 1, further comprising: adjusting, by the one or more processers, a simulated orientation or a simulated position for at least one transducer array of the one or more candidate transducer array layout maps, wherein the transducer array layout plan is further determined based on adjusting the simulated orientation or the simulated position for the at least one transducer array (making adjustments; see Wenger et al. [0114]).
Regarding claims 8-20, the claims are rejected mutatis mutandis in view of the rejection of claims 1-7 above by Wenger et al. (‘956) in view of MacDonald et al. (‘372).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARK REMALY whose telephone number is (571)270-1491. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00 - 6:00.
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.
/MARK D REMALY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797