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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in Applicant’s remarks filed 02/27/2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 102(1)(a) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejections are made in view of newly found prior art, Nomura, et al., US 20240050190 A1 which teaches an oblong shaped marker for attachment to a patient for diagnostic purposes.
Applicant remarks on pages 12-15 that Ishida’s leveling instrument 20 of fig. 5, relied upon for the claimed measurement position indicator being in a corner of the housing, is provided at a middle upper surface of the measuring apparatus 10 and not a corner.
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “middle upper surface” is an edge/corner of the housing of the measuring apparatus 10.
Therefore, the claims stand rejected.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: correspondence indicator in line 2 of claim 6 and line 2 of claim 10.
For the means-plus-function of “correspondence indicator”, the originally filed specification discloses a mark 324A/324B, also depicted in the figures as double sided arrows in figs. 1-3.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this limitation interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation recites sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Withdrawn Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Pursuant of Applicant’s amendments, the rejection of claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishida, et al., US 6530886 B1 (Disclosed in the IDS filed 12/13/2024).
Regarding claim 7, Ishida teaches an ultrasonic device (see reproduced fig. 5 below. NB: Col. 3, lines 55-58 note that “FIG. 5 represents a modified form of the first embodiment of the measuring apparatus 10. It includes basically the same components and functions as those in the first embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4”. That is, while the rejection makes references to components in figs. 3 and 4 their corresponding sections of the specification, the rejection is relying on the embodiment of fig. 5) comprising:
an ultrasonic sensor (ultrasonic probe 12 of fig. 5 and col. 3, lines 16-18) configured to:
transmit ultrasonic waves into a living body; and receive ultrasonic waves reflected inside the living body (col. 1, lines 65-68 and col. 2, lines 1-4 state that “The ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver are disposed for measuring the subcutaneous fat in an area around 2 cm above the navel of the person along a median line. A shoulder joint of the person is defined as the reference position for measurement. The ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver are formed by one and the same device” and col. 2, lines “when the measurement is performed in an area along the median line 2, there is no such influence of the muscles 3 produced. Then the reliable measurement for the thickness of subcutaneous fat 5 can be achieved with the reflected wave "R2" from a portion indicated by a linea alba 6” meaning ultrasound waves are transmitted into the body and reflected ultrasonic waves are received from the body to perform the measurements); and
a housing (fat measuring apparatus 10 of reproduced fig. 5 above) that includes a window through which the transmitted ultrasonic waves and the received ultrasonic wave pass, wherein the housing is configured to accommodate the ultrasonic sensor therein (As noted above, the ultrasonic probe 12 transmits ultrasonic waves into the body and receives reflected waves from the body. The region of the apparatus 10 where the ultrasonic probe 12 is placed provides an acoustic window for performing the transmission into and reception from the body. For referential purposes only, fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional view of the apparatus 10 comprising an acoustic window through which the ultrasonic probe 12 transmits ultrasonic waves to into the body),
the housing further includes a reference position indicator (col. 3, lines 13-16 state that “The subcutaneous fat measuring apparatus 10 includes a reference position setting device 11 for positioning the apparatus 10 by setting a projection 11a at the reference point or the navel 7 of a person under test”) and a measurement position indicator (col. 3, lines 58-64 state that “the measuring apparatus 10 in FIG. 5 includes an additional component or a leveling instrument 20 that is mounted adjacent the measurement start switch 13 at the middle of upper surface of the apparatus 10. When the leveling instrument 20 indicates a horizontal position, it means that the apparatus 10 is positioned horizontal”),
when the reference position indicator is overlapped on a specific part on a body surface of the living body, the measurement position indicator indicates a measurement part on the body surface of the living body (col. 3, lines 62-67 and col. 4 lines 1-2 state that “When the leveling instrument 20 indicates a horizontal position, it means that the apparatus 10 is positioned horizontal. In other words, the ultrasonic probe 12 becomes vertical to the reference position setting device 11 at the navel 7 of the person so that the probe 12 is properly positioned on the median line 2. Therefore, the person under test can easily perform the measurement of the subcutaneous fat on the median line 2”), and
the measurement position indicator is one of: a part of a boundary between the housing and the living body, when in a state of the housing being in contact with the body surface of the living body and viewing from the housing toward the living body, or a corner of the housing (As can be seen in reproduced fig. 5 above, the leveling instrument 20 is disposed on an edge of the housing of the apparatus 20. This amounts to providing the measurement position indicator as a corner of the housing).
Regarding claim 11, Ishida teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 7, respectively, above.
Ishida in view of the embodiment of Nomura in fig. 13 relied upon above fails to teach wherein the housing further includes a direction instruction section, and when the reference position indicator is overlapped on the specific part on the body surface of the living body, the direction instruction section indicates a direction of the housing.
However, Nomura further teaches an embodiment separate from the embodiment in fig. 13, Nomura further teaches the examination marker 110 (see reproduced fig. 8 below and [0134]), wherein the housing further includes a direction instruction section, and when the reference position indicator is overlapped on the specific part on the body surface of the living body, the direction instruction section indicates a direction of the housing ([0140]-[0141], [0144]-[0145] disclose grid lines 112A and 112B for indicating arrangement direction and scanning direction and [0149]-[0150] indicate direction of scanning based on the grid lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, as modified by the embodiment in fig. 13 of Nomura, wherein the housing further includes a direction instruction section, and when the reference position indicator is overlapped on the specific part on the body surface of the living body, the direction instruction section indicates a direction of the housing, as taught by the embodiment in fig. 8 of Nomura, to improve the accuracy of the diagnostic imaging exam ([0005], [0007]).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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, 3, and 12 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida, et al., US 6530886 B1 (Disclosed in the IDS filed 12/13/2024) in view of Nomura, et al., US 20240050190 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Ishida teaches an ultrasonic device (see reproduced fig. 5 below. NB: Col. 3, lines 55-58 note that “FIG. 5 represents a modified form of the first embodiment of the measuring apparatus 10. It includes basically the same components and functions as those in the first embodiment, as shown in FIGS. 3 and 4”. That is, while the rejection makes references to components in figs. 3 and 4 their corresponding sections of the specification, the rejection is relying on the embodiment of fig. 5) comprising:
an ultrasonic sensor (ultrasonic probe 12 of fig. 5 and col. 3, lines 16-18) configured to:
transmit ultrasonic waves into a living body; and receive ultrasonic waves reflected inside the living body (col. 1, lines 65-68 and col. 2, lines 1-4 state that “The ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver are disposed for measuring the subcutaneous fat in an area around 2 cm above the navel of the person along a median line. A shoulder joint of the person is defined as the reference position for measurement. The ultrasonic transmitter and the ultrasonic receiver are formed by one and the same device” and col. 2, lines “when the measurement is performed in an area along the median line 2, there is no such influence of the muscles 3 produced. Then the reliable measurement for the thickness of subcutaneous fat 5 can be achieved with the reflected wave "R2" from a portion indicated by a linea alba 6” meaning ultrasound waves are transmitted into the body and reflected ultrasonic waves are received from the body to perform the measurements); and
a housing (fat measuring apparatus 10 of reproduced fig. 5 below) that includes a window through which the transmitted ultrasonic waves and the received ultrasonic wave pass, wherein the housing is configured to accommodate the ultrasonic sensor therein (As noted above, the ultrasonic probe 12 transmits ultrasonic waves into the body and receives reflected waves from the body. The region of the apparatus 10 where the ultrasonic probe 12 is placed provides an acoustic window for performing the transmission into and reception from the body. For referential purposes only, fig. 4 shows a cross-sectional view of the apparatus 10 comprising an acoustic window through which the ultrasonic probe 12 transmits ultrasonic waves to into the body),
the housing further includes a reference position indicator (col. 3, lines 13-16 state that “The subcutaneous fat measuring apparatus 10 includes a reference position setting device 11 for positioning the apparatus 10 by setting a projection 11a at the reference point or the navel 7 of a person under test”) and a measurement position indicator (col. 3, lines 58-64 state that “the measuring apparatus 10 in FIG. 5 includes an additional component or a leveling instrument 20 that is mounted adjacent the measurement start switch 13 at the middle of upper surface of the apparatus 10. When the leveling instrument 20 indicates a horizontal position, it means that the apparatus 10 is positioned horizontal”),
when the reference position indicator is overlapped on a specific part on a body surface of the living body, the measurement position indicator indicates a measurement part on the body surface of the living body (col. 3, lines 62-67 and col. 4 lines 1-2 state that “When the leveling instrument 20 indicates a horizontal position, it means that the apparatus 10 is positioned horizontal. In other words, the ultrasonic probe 12 becomes vertical to the reference position setting device 11 at the navel 7 of the person so that the probe 12 is properly positioned on the median line 2. Therefore, the person under test can easily perform the measurement of the subcutaneous fat on the median line 2”),
PNG
media_image2.png
522
262
media_image2.png
Greyscale
the reference position indicator is one of a mark indicated on an exterior surface of the housing or is a part of the shape of the housing (the reference position setting device 11, which includes the projection 11A as can be seen in fig. 4 (for referential purposes only), is a part of the rectangular shaped housing of the apparatus 10).
Ishida fails to teach the part of the shape of the housing is a concave curved surface of the housing, and the mark indicated on the exterior surface of the housing is one of a printed mark or an embossing mark.
However, Nomura teaches an examination marker for use in diagnostic imaging using microwaves. The examination marker includes a marker main body to be attached to an examination target, wherein the marker main body is capable of displaying, on the marker main body, an index for use in scanning the examination target marker and is deformable following the shape of the examination target (see abstract), the part of the shape of the housing is a concave curved surface of the housing (see reproduced fig. 13 below and [0213]), and the mark indicated on the exterior surface of the housing is one of a printed mark or an embossing mark ([0218], [0222] disclose that the verification part 134 is printed).
PNG
media_image3.png
338
646
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, wherein the part of the shape of the housing is a concave curved surface of the housing, and the mark indicated on the exterior surface of the housing is one of a printed mark or an embossing mark, as taught by Nomura, to improve the accuracy of the diagnostic imaging exam ([0005], [0007]).
Regarding claim 3, Ishida in view of Nomura teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ishida further teaches wherein the measurement position indicator is one of: a part of a boundary between the housing and the living body when in a state of the housing being in contact with the body surface of the living body and viewing from the housing toward the living body, or is a corner of the housing (As can be seen in reproduced fig. 5 above, the leveling instrument 20 is disposed on an edge of the housing of the apparatus 20. This amounts to providing the measurement position indicator as a corner of the housing).
Regarding claim 12, Ishida in view of Nomura teaches all the limitations of claim 1 above.
Ishida in view of the embodiment of Nomura in fig. 13 relied upon above fails to teach wherein the housing further includes a direction instruction section, and when the reference position indicator is overlapped on the specific part on the body surface of the living body, the direction instruction section indicates a direction of the housing.
However, Nomura further teaches an embodiment separate from the embodiment in fig. 13, Nomura further teaches the examination marker 110 (see reproduced fig. 8 below and [0134]), wherein the housing further includes a direction instruction section, and when the reference position indicator is overlapped on the specific part on the body surface of the living body, the direction instruction section indicates a direction of the housing ([0140]-[0141], [0144]-[0145] disclose grid lines 112A and 112B for indicating arrangement direction and scanning direction and [0149]-[0150] indicate direction of scanning based on the grid lines).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, as modified by the embodiment in fig. 13 of Nomura, wherein the housing further includes a direction instruction section, and when the reference position indicator is overlapped on the specific part on the body surface of the living body, the direction instruction section indicates a direction of the housing, as taught by the embodiment in fig. 8 of Nomura, to improve the accuracy of the diagnostic imaging exam ([0005], [0007]).
PNG
media_image1.png
458
596
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claims 4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Nomura, as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Olson, E. S., US 20120265054 A1.
Regarding claims 4, Ishida in view of Nomura teaches all the limitations of claims 1 above.
Ishida in view of Nomura fails to teach wherein the housing further includes a plurality of measurement position indicators corresponding to different measurement parts of the living body.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Olson teaches a system 8 of reproduced fig. 1 below, and comprising a catheter 13 ([0027]), used to measure electrophysiology data at a plurality of points along a cardiac surface, and to store the measured data in association with location information for each measurement point at which the electrophysiology data was measured, for example to create a diagnostic data map of the patient's heart 10 ([0023]). [0025] discloses a plurality of localization field generators (e.g., 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 22) that generate an electrical or magnetic field, respectively, across the patient's body. These localization field generators, which may be applied to the patient (internally and/or externally) or fixed to an external apparatus, define three generally orthogonal axes, referred to herein as an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis. [0039] then indicates that “For each reference location r, the position information measured with respect to each component of hybrid localization system 8 is associated as a fiducial grouping (A.sub.r, B.sub.r). Preferably, at least two such fiducial groupings (e.g., (A.sub.1, B.sub.1) and (A.sub.2, B.sub.2)) are used to generate a mapping function, denoted f, to the common coordinate frame”, and hence teaching wherein the housing includes a plurality of measurement position indicators corresponding to different measurement parts of the living body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, as modified by Nomura, wherein the housing (that is the catheter 13 of [0027]) includes a plurality of measurement position indicators corresponding to different measurement parts of the living body, as taught by Olson, as such modification would allow accurate mapping of the fiducial to the region of measurement ([0008]-[0009]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishida also strives to provide a way of consistently measuring the region of interest to increase the accuracy of the measurements (col. 1, lines 13-34).
PNG
media_image4.png
746
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 5 Ishida in view of Nomura and Olson teaches all the limitations of claim 4 above.
Ishida in view of Nomura fails to teach wherein the housing further includes a plurality of reference position indicators corresponding to each of the plurality of measurement position indicators.
However, Olson further teaches wherein the housing includes a plurality of reference position indicators corresponding to each of the plurality of measurement position indicators. [0041]-[0042] discloses that the location elements may be localization elements 52 and 56, which are magnetic position sensors, and localization elements 17 and 54 are electrodes for impedance measurements at the relative reference locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, as modified by Nomura, wherein the housing (that is the catheter 13 of [0027]) includes a plurality of reference position indicators corresponding to each of the plurality of measurement position indicators, as taught by Olson, as such modification would allow accurate mapping of the fiducial to the region of measurement ([0008]-[0009]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishida also strives to provide a way of consistently measuring the region of interest to increase the accuracy of the measurements (col. 1, lines 13-34).
Claims 5 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Olson, E. S., US 20120265054 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Ishida teaches all the limitations of claim 7 above.
Ishida fails to teach wherein the housing further includes a plurality of measurement position indicators corresponding to different measurement parts of the living body.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Olson teaches a system 8 of reproduced fig. 1 below, and comprising a catheter 13 ([0027]), used to measure electrophysiology data at a plurality of points along a cardiac surface, and to store the measured data in association with location information for each measurement point at which the electrophysiology data was measured, for example to create a diagnostic data map of the patient's heart 10 ([0023]). [0025] discloses a plurality of localization field generators (e.g., 12, 14, 16, 18, 19, and 22) that generate an electrical or magnetic field, respectively, across the patient's body. These localization field generators, which may be applied to the patient (internally and/or externally) or fixed to an external apparatus, define three generally orthogonal axes, referred to herein as an x-axis, a y-axis, and a z-axis. [0039] then indicates that “For each reference location r, the position information measured with respect to each component of hybrid localization system 8 is associated as a fiducial grouping (A.sub.r, B.sub.r). Preferably, at least two such fiducial groupings (e.g., (A.sub.1, B.sub.1) and (A.sub.2, B.sub.2)) are used to generate a mapping function, denoted f, to the common coordinate frame”, and hence teaching wherein the housing includes a plurality of measurement position indicators corresponding to different measurement parts of the living body.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, wherein the housing (that is the catheter 13 of [0027]) includes a plurality of measurement position indicators corresponding to different measurement parts of the living body, as taught by Olson, as such modification would allow accurate mapping of the fiducial to the region of measurement ([0008]-[0009]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishida also strives to provide a way of consistently measuring the region of interest to increase the accuracy of the measurements (col. 1, lines 13-34).
PNG
media_image4.png
746
576
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Ishida in view of Olson teaches all the limitations of claim 8 above.
Ishida fails to teach wherein the housing further includes a plurality of reference position indicators corresponding to each of the plurality of measurement position indicators.
However, Olson further teaches wherein the housing includes a plurality of reference position indicators corresponding to each of the plurality of measurement position indicators. [0041]-[0042] discloses that the location elements may be localization elements 52 and 56, which are magnetic position sensors, and localization elements 17 and 54 are electrodes for impedance measurements at the relative reference locations.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida, wherein the housing (that is the catheter 13 of [0027]) includes a plurality of reference position indicators corresponding to each of the plurality of measurement position indicators, as taught by Olson, as such modification would allow accurate mapping of the fiducial to the region of measurement ([0008]-[0009]), with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishida also strives to provide a way of consistently measuring the region of interest to increase the accuracy of the measurements (col. 1, lines 13-34).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Nomura and Olson, as applied to claims 5, and further in view of Salahieh, et al., US 20170042614 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Ishida in view of Nomura and Olson teaches all the limitations of claims 5 and 9, respectively above.
Ishida in view of Nomura and Olson fails to teach a correspondence indicator configured to indicate respondence between one of the plurality of reference position indicators and one of the plurality of measurement position indicators.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Salahieh teaches radiopaque patterns that can be used with an expandable membrane structure 34 for the visualization and orientation of the placement of the electrodes 6 onto the tissue as well as the overall shape of the expandable membrane structure 34 [0225]. Figs. 3B and 39A depict the markers 58. [0230] states that “the temperature sensors 90 and electrodes themselves can serve as radiopaque markers which provide an indication of overall shape of the expandable membrane 34”. [0225] states that “the radiopaque markers 58 can be thin lines or “spines” along the longitudinal axis either between the electrodes 6 as shown in FIG. 39A or directly across the center of the electrodes as shown in FIG. 39B or 39C. These spines of radiopaque markers 58 provide an indication of distance between electrodes 6 and overall shape of the balloon 34 against the tissue”, meaning that the markers 58 as shown in fig. 39A in the form of a lines describe an indication of distance between the electrodes 6, which are themselves radiopaque markers that prove an overall shape of the expandable membrane 34 during the measurements.
PNG
media_image5.png
573
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
85
120
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida as modified by Nomura and Olson with a correspondence indicator configured to indicate respondence between one of the plurality of reference position indicators and one of the plurality of measurement position indicators, as taught by Salahieh, as such modification would enhance the visualization of orientation and placement of the device, that is the expandable membrane structure in this particular case [0225], with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishida also strives to provide a way of consistently measuring the region of interest to increase the accuracy of the measurements (col. 1, lines 13-34).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida in view of Olson, as applied to claim above, and further in view of Salahieh, et al., US 20170042614 A1.
Regarding claim 10, Ishida in view of Nomura and Olson teaches all the limitations of claim 9 above.
Ishida in view of Olson fails to teach a correspondence indicator configured to indicate respondence between one of the plurality of reference position indicators and one of the plurality of measurement position indicators.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Salahieh teaches radiopaque patterns that can be used with an expandable membrane structure 34 for the visualization and orientation of the placement of the electrodes 6 onto the tissue as well as the overall shape of the expandable membrane structure 34 [0225]. Figs. 3B and 39A depict the markers 58. [0230] states that “the temperature sensors 90 and electrodes themselves can serve as radiopaque markers which provide an indication of overall shape of the expandable membrane 34”. [0225] states that “the radiopaque markers 58 can be thin lines or “spines” along the longitudinal axis either between the electrodes 6 as shown in FIG. 39A or directly across the center of the electrodes as shown in FIG. 39B or 39C. These spines of radiopaque markers 58 provide an indication of distance between electrodes 6 and overall shape of the balloon 34 against the tissue”, meaning that the markers 58 as shown in fig. 39A in the form of a lines describe an indication of distance between the electrodes 6, which are themselves radiopaque markers that prove an overall shape of the expandable membrane 34 during the measurements.
PNG
media_image5.png
573
170
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
85
120
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Ishida as modified by Olson with a correspondence indicator configured to indicate respondence between one of the plurality of reference position indicators and one of the plurality of measurement position indicators, as taught by Salahieh, as such modification would enhance the visualization of orientation and placement of the device, that is the expandable membrane structure in this particular case [0225], with a reasonable expectation of success, as Ishida also strives to provide a way of consistently measuring the region of interest to increase the accuracy of the measurements (col. 1, lines 13-34).
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 Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
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.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights