Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/02/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 2, line 8, “…into the region of interest, a receive time…” should be “…into the region of interest and a receive time…” for clarity. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 7 of U.S. Patent No. 9,668,714 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are an obvious variant of the claim set from the patent only including minor differences in structure.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claims 1 (see col. 31, lines 42-46) and 7 (see col. 32, line 64 to col. 33, line 2) of US patent ‘714 similarly recite a plurality of transmit apertures configured to each transmit an unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals into a region of interest.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claims 1 (see col. 31, lines 47-49) and 7 (see col. 33, lines 4-6) of US patent ‘714 similarly recite one or more receive apertures configured to receive echoes of the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 1 (see col. 31, lines 55-65) of US patent ‘714 similarly recite a controller configured to determine, for each transmitted unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal, an elapsed time between a transmit time (first distance) of transmitting the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal into the region of interest, a receive time (second distance) of receiving echoes returned by reflectors in the region of interest, and intensity values for the received echoes (first image layer and second image layer).
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 1 (see col. 31, line 55 to col. 32, line 3) of US patent ‘714 similarly recite applying weighting factors based on elapsed time (total path length) and intensity values (image layers). The instant invention specifies analyzing patterns of the elapsed time and the intensity values for each transmit aperture to determine a degree of blockage of each of the plurality of transmit apertures, and apply weighting factors to each of the plurality of transmit apertures proportional to the degree of blockage determined for each transmit aperture.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 14, and 21 of U.S. Patent No. 11,172,911 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are an obvious variant of the claim set from the patent only including minor differences in structure.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claims 1 (see col. 31, lines 44-49), 8 (see col. 32, lines 55-57), and 14 (see col. 33, lines 54-63) of US patent ‘911 similarly recite a plurality of transmit apertures configured to each transmit an unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals into a region of interest.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claims 1 (see col. 31, lines 50-52), 8 (see col. 32, lines 58-59), and 14 (see col. 33, lines 54-63) of US patent ‘911 similarly recite one or more receive apertures configured to receive echoes of the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claims 7 (see col. 32, lines 46-53) and 21 (see col. 34, lines 57-65) of US patent ‘911 similarly recite a controller configured to determine, for each transmitted unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal, an elapsed time between a transmit time (first distance) of transmitting the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal into the region of interest, a receive time (second distance) of receiving echoes returned by reflectors in the region of interest, and intensity values for the received echoes.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claims 7 (see col. 32, lines 46-53) and 21 (see col. 34, lines 57-65) of US patent ‘911 similarly recite applying weighting factors based on elapsed time (total path length) and intensity values. The instant invention specifies analyzing patterns of the elapsed time and the intensity values for each transmit aperture to determine a degree of blockage of each of the plurality of transmit apertures, and apply weighting factors to each of the plurality of transmit apertures proportional to the degree of blockage determined for each transmit aperture.
Claims 2-5 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12,186,133 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are an obvious variant of the claim set from the patent only including minor differences in structure.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 1 (see col. 31, line 29 to col. 32, line 2) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite a plurality of transmit apertures configured to each transmit an unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals into a region of interest.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 1 (col. 32, lines 2-4) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite one or more receive apertures configured to receive echoes of the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 1 (see col. 32, lines 5-11) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite determine, for each transmitted unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal, an elapsed time between a transmit time of transmitting the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal into the region of interest, a receive time of receiving echoes returned by reflectors in the region of interest, and intensity values for the received echoes.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 1 (see col. 32, lines 12-19) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite analyze patterns of the elapsed time and the intensity values for each transmit aperture to determine a degree of blockage of each of the plurality of transmit apertures, and apply weighting factors to each of the plurality of transmit apertures proportional to the degree of blockage determined for each transmit aperture.
Claim 3 of the instant invention and claim 2 (see col. 32, lines 20-22) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite apply a weighting factor of 1 to any transmit apertures that are unblocked.
Claim 4 of the instant invention and claim 3 (see col. 32, lines 23-25) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite apply a weighting factor of 0 to any transmit apertures that are completely blocked.
Claim 5 of the instant invention and claim 4 (see col. 32, lines 26-28) of US patent ‘133 similarly recite apply a weighting factor between 0 and 1 to transmit apertures that are partially blocked.
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with (see Claim objection and Double patenting rejection above). See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claim 2, no non-double patenting prior art was found that teaches the combination of limitations:
a controller configured to determine, for each transmitted unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal, an elapsed time between a transmit time of transmitting the unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signal into the region of interest, a receive time of receiving echoes returned by reflectors in the region of interest, and intensity values for the received echoes;
the controller being further configured to analyze patterns of the elapsed time and the intensity values for each transmit aperture to determine a degree of blockage of each of the plurality of transmit apertures, and apply weighting factors to each of the plurality of transmit apertures proportional to the degree of blockage determined for each transmit aperture, as disclosed in the applicant’s specification (see para. 0114, 0130-0144) and Fig. 9, without hindsight reasoning.
Goepp etal. (US 20070043290 A 1, February 22, 2007) teaches determining whether or not the receiving signals encounter bone at a predetermined depth based on meeting a predetermined intensity threshold condition (see para. 0077), but does not explicitly teach determining a degree of blockage for each of a plurality of transmit apertures based on elapsed time and intensity value of the reflected signals, then applying weighting factors to a plurality of transmit apertures proportional to a degree of blockage without hindsight reasoning.
Miyaki (US 20130030296 A1, published January 31, 2013 with a priority date of November 11, 2011) teaches applying an amplification factor (weighting) to received signals when deep echoes are detected (see para. 0032), but does not explicitly teach determining a degree of blockage for each of a plurality of transmit apertures based on elapsed time and intensity value of the reflected signals, then applying weighting factors to a plurality of transmit apertures proportional to a degree of blockage without hindsight reasoning.
Claims 3-5 are dependent of claim 2, and therefore considered allowable subject matter as well.
The combination of the limitations not disclosed or rendered obvious by the prior art of record imparts a novel and non-obvious function of the claimed device, as disclosed in the applicant’s specification (see para. 0114, 0130-0144) and Fig. 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nyrobi Celestine/Examiner, Art Unit 3798