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
The response to Applicant’s election with traverse of Species A (b) and B(i) in the reply filed on 6/12/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 6, 9-10, 14, 16 and 20-23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected species. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 6/12/2026. Examiner, respectfully maintains the species restriction as the system configurations (species A) effect where and how the hardware is arranged on the ultrasound transducer which correlates to the functional performance and type of practical application usages used for each of the different configurations. The same is applied to the system design species as the different arrays or interfaces change aspects to the functional performance. Examiner notes the restriction is a species and thus all withdrawn claims will be rejoined at time of independent claim 1 being deemed allowable. Claims 1-5, 7-8, 11-13, 15,17-19 and 24 are pending
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because legalese, claim language is used. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
Claim 4 is 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.
Regarding claim 4, limitation “…wherein collocation of the optical receiver array and the source array includes overlapping of elevational footprints.” is unclear what is entailed/reference frame in “…overlapping of elevational footprints.”. It is unclear the frame of reference “elevation footprints” is considered with respect to the transducer case and the overall compact mixed ultrasound transducer components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 11-12, 18-19 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ogawa (U.S. 20010042410, November 22, 2001)(hereinafter, “Ogawa”).
Regarding Claim 1, Ogawa teaches: A compact mixed ultrasound transducer (Figs. 1 and 16, [0040][0091]) comprising:
a transducer case (“…an optical fiber array 13 provided with ultrasonic detecting elements 14, 17, or 18 is contained in a housing 21.” [0091];
a source array configured comprising at least one acoustic energy generating transducer and configured to transmit acoustic waves (“…FIG. 18, this ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus includes a drive signal generating circuit 30 for generating a drive signal and an ultrasonic transmission unit 40 for transmitting ultrasonic waves in response to this drive signal. The ultrasonic transmission unit 40 includes an oscillator or probe (one dimensional array) each of which has a piezoelectric element such as a PZT or a PVDF.” [0095]); and
an optical receiver array including at least one optical sensor and configured to detect acoustic echoes associated with the acoustic waves (“…an optical fiber array 13 provided with ultrasonic detecting elements 14, 17, or 18 is contained in a housing 21.” [0091]. See Figs. 18 and 22).
Regarding Claim 2, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: wherein the source array and the optical receiver array are collocated (“The Bragg grating portion is a multilayered stack formed by alternating some thousands of layers including two kinds of materials (light propagation medium) different in refractive index to be layered at a certain pith so as to satisfy the Bragg reflection condition.” [0055]. See Figs. 1, 18 and 22).
Regarding Claim 3, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: wherein collocation of the optical receiver array and the source array includes interspersal of the at least one acoustic energy generating transducer and the at least one optical sensor (“Those reconstructed data are subjected to processes such as interpolation, response modulation, gradation processing, etc, and then displayed on an image display unit 100. Further, the data processed at the image processing unit 90 are stored in a secondary storage unit 110.” [0097]).
Regarding Claim 4, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: wherein collocation of the optical receiver array and the source array includes overlapping of elevational footprints (“The Bragg grating portion is a multilayered stack formed by alternating some thousands of layers including two kinds of materials (light propagation medium) different in refractive index to be layered at a certain pith so as to satisfy the Bragg reflection condition.” [0055]. See Figs. 1, 18 and 22).
Regarding Claim 11, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: further comprising an acoustic mirror configured to redirect the acoustic waves (“The light generated by the light source 11 enters a beam separator 12 which is constructed using a half mirror, an optical circulator, a polarizing beam splitter, or the like... The half mirror transmits the incident light and redirects the reflected light returned from the direction opposite to the incident direction in a direction at about 90 degrees with respect to the incident direction.” [0040]).
Regarding Claim 12, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: wherein the transducer case is configured to accommodate a coupling medium between the source array and the acoustic mirror (“…the narrow-band-pass filter 19 and the ultrasonic detecting elements 17 are made from the same materials and thermal coupling is provided between the narrow-band-pass filter 19 and the ultrasonic detecting elements 17. The thermal coupling is established, for example, by connecting the narrow-band-pass filter 19 and the ultrasonic detecting elements 17 via a material having a high thermal conductivity, or by placing the narrow-band-pass filter 19 and the ultrasonic detecting elements 17 in physically close proximity to each other.” [0087]. See e.g. Figs. 1 and 9).
Regarding Claim 18, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: further comprising a multi-core optical fiber configured to provide input and output signals to the optical receiver array (“ The light emitted from the light source 11 and transmitted through the beam separator 12 is then directed onto an optical fiber array 13. The optical fiber array 13 includes fine optical fibers 13a, 13b…which are arrayed in the form of a two-dimensional arrangement... The optical fiber array 13 has ultrasonic detecting elements 14 in the tip thereof. The ultrasonic detecting elements 14 are Fabry-Perot resonators (abbreviated as FPR) 14a, 14b…formed in the tips of the optical fibers 13a, 13b…respectively.” [0041]-0042]).
Regarding Claim 19, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: further comprising an optical fiber configured for wavelength division multiplexing to provide input and output signals to the optical receiver array (“…an optical waveguide path 53 having a Bragg grating structure is employed as an ultrasonic detecting element, a plurality of light having different wavelengths is multiplexed with each other, and then, the multiplexed light is used as detection light.” [0065]; “The projection light L.sub.1', L.sub.2', . . . of the Bragg gratings 52a, 52b…is sequentially multiplexed with each other in the corresponding gaps 54a, 54b…and then, the multiplexed light is entered into the optical fiber 56.” [0071]).
Regarding Claim 24, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: further comprising: a processor in communication with the source array and the optical receiver array and operable to generate an ultrasound image (“This ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus further comprises a light source 11, a beam separator 12, a focussing system 15 and a photodetector 16…” [0096]; “An image processing unit 90 reconstructs two-dimensional or three-dimensional data based on the data mentioned above.” [0097]); and
a display in communication with the processor and operable to display the ultrasound image (“An image processing unit 90 reconstructs two-dimensional or three-dimensional data…Those reconstructed data are subjected to processes such as interpolation, response modulation, gradation processing, etc, and then displayed on an image display unit 100. Further, the data processed at the image processing unit 90 are stored in a secondary storage unit 110.” [0097]).
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.
Claims 5 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa.
Regarding Claim 5, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Since Ogawa has the overall system hardware component requirements as in the claim limitations, the limitations of the number of elements and dimensions would be obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified to meet claim limitations: predictable solutions for wherein the optical receiver array includes 30 to 48 optical receiving elements and has a lateral dimension of approximately 3 mm to 4.8 mm. Furthermore, it has been held that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding Claim 7, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Since Ogawa has the overall system hardware component requirements as in the claim limitations, the limitations of the number of elements and dimensions would be obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified to meet claim limitations: wherein the transducer case has a diameter between 2 and 5 mm. Furthermore, it has been held that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding Claim 8, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Since Ogawa has the overall system hardware component requirements as in the claim limitations, the limitations of the number of elements and dimensions would be obvious to try as one of a finite number of identified to meet claim limitations: wherein the transducer case includes a rigid length of between 2 and 5 mm. Furthermore, it has been held that “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claims 13 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Andersen et. al. (U.S. 20180185008, July 5, 2018)(hereinafter, “Andersen”).
Regarding Claim 13, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa further teaches: wherein the source array and the optical receiver array are a first mixed-array transducer (“The light emitted from the light source 11 and transmitted through the beam separator 12 is then directed onto an optical fiber array 13. The optical fiber array 13 includes fine optical fibers 13a, 13b, . . . which are arrayed in the form of a two-dimensional arrangement. It is desirable that these optical fibers are single mode fibers.” [0041]),
Ogawa does not teach: the compact mixed ultrasound transducer further comprising a second-mixed-array transducer coupled to an endoscope.
Andersen in the field of ultrasound imaging systems teaches: “…FIG. 1, an endoscopic probe 102 includes a light source 104 and an optical imager 106 at a distal end 108. The endoscopic probe 102 further includes an instrument channel 110, which extends the length of the endoscopic ultrasound probe. With this example, the endoscopic probe 102 is inserted and used as discussed above. However, rather than removing the endoscope and inserting an ultrasound probe, an ultrasound mini-probe 112 protruding from the channel 110 out of the distal end 108 is used.” [0004].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the compact mixed ultrasound transducer of Ogawa to include second-mixed-array transducer coupled to an endoscope as taught in Andersen to combine ultrasonography and endoscopy to identify, remove and evaluate abnormalities in a region of interest (Andersen, [0003]).
Regarding Claim 17, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa does not teach: wherein the transducer case is configured for incorporation within an endoscope.
Andersen in the field of ultrasound imaging systems teaches: “…FIG. 1, an endoscopic probe 102 includes a light source 104 and an optical imager 106 at a distal end 108. The endoscopic probe 102 further includes an instrument channel 110, which extends the length of the endoscopic ultrasound probe. With this example, the endoscopic probe 102 is inserted and used as discussed above. However, rather than removing the endoscope and inserting an ultrasound probe, an ultrasound mini-probe 112 protruding from the channel 110 out of the distal end 108 is used.” [0004].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the transducer case of Ogawa to be configured for incorporation within an endoscope as taught in Andersen to combine ultrasonography and endoscopy to identify, remove and evaluate abnormalities in a region of interest (Andersen, [0003]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogawa in view of Stigall et. al. (U.S. 20190105015, January 28, 2016)(hereinafter, “Stigall”).
Regarding Claim 15, Ogawa teaches the claim limitations as noted above.
Ogawa does not explicitly teach which capturing view of the arrays to meet limitations: wherein the source array and the optical receiver array are configured to capture side view ultrasound information.
Stigall in the field of insertable ultrasound imaging devices teaches: “…a single ultrasound transducer element is located at the tip of a flexible driveshaft that spins inside a plastic sheath inserted into the vessel of interest. In side-looking rotational devices, the transducer element is oriented such that the ultrasound beam propagates generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device.” [0003].
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the configuration of the source array and the optical receiver array of Ogawa to capture side view ultrasound information as taught in Stigall “…such that the ultrasound beam propagates generally perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the device.” (Stigall, [0003]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Irisawa et. al. U.S. 20150173626 teaches a photoacoustic system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMAL FARAG whose telephone number is (571)270-3432. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/AMAL ALY FARAG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights