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 .
Drawings
The drawings dated 16 December 2024 are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 114 in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 1-25 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 "and a flexible elongated waveguide having a first end positioned in the chamber opposite the curved surface" in Lines 9-10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “and a flexible elongated waveguide having a first end positioned in the chamber opposite the curved surface” read as “and a flexible elongated waveguide having a first end positioned in the chamber opposite the structure”
Claim 5 recites the limitation "into the conical portion of the housing" in Lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “For examining purposes, “into the conical portion of the housing” read as “into the generally conical configuration portion of the chamber
Claims 8 and 9 recite the limitation "the steerable waveguide" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “the steerable waveguide” is read as “the
Claim 10 recites the limitation "wherein the inner diameter of the waveguide" in Line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examining purposes, “wherein the inner diameter of the waveguide” is read as “wherein an inner diameter of the waveguide”. Examiner notes reference of diameter is stated in claim 9.
The terms “sufficiently high” and “excessive temperature” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “sufficiently high” and “excessive temperature” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examining purposes “that has an absorption coefficient sufficiently high” is read as “that has an absorption coefficient
Claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 11-13,15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) for being dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“structure configured to focus the acoustic waves transmitted from the surface of the acoustic transducer; ” is read as “a structure configured to focus the acoustic waves transmitted from the surface of the acoustic transducer; ”
“an acoustic transducer supported the housing” is read as “an acoustic transducer supporting the housing”
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
“wherein the nose section comprises has a tip” is read as “wherein the nose section comprises
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A).
Regarding Claim 1, Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) discloses a waveguide assembly for delivering focused acoustic energy (Waveguide assembly 10; Col. 4, Lines 35-55; Fig. 1-2 ), comprising:
a housing comprising a chamber filled with a medium for propagating acoustic waves (Housing 34 with chamber 50 filled with medium 30; Col. 5, Lines 20-40; Fig. 2);
an acoustic transducer supporting the housing and having a surface facing into the chamber, the surface being configured to transmit acoustic waves into the chamber through the medium toward a focus zone (Transducer 52 in housing 34 with surface A facing into majority of chamber 50, surface A configured concave to transmit through medium 30 toward focus zone 54; Col. 5, Lines 1-20; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2);
a structure configured to focus the acoustic waves transmitted from the surface of the acoustic transducer (Structure being surface A of transducer 52 configured concave to transmit toward focus zone 54; Col. 5, Lines 1-20; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2);
and a flexible elongated waveguide having a first end positioned in the chamber opposite the structure (Waveguide 26 is flexible having first end 54 positioned inside chamber 50 opposite A; Col. 4, Lines 50-52; Col. 5, Lines 14-20; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2), and a second end outside the chamber (Second end 28 outside of chamber 50; Fig. 1), the waveguide having a tubular configuration with an inner lumen in fluid communication with the chamber via the first end and being filled with the medium (Tubular configuration with inner lumen in structure of waveguide 26 comprising central core surrounded by cladding to direct signals; Col. 4, Lines 38-52; Col. 5, Lines 20-40; Fig. 2);
wherein the first end of the waveguide is configured to be positioned in the focus zone so that the focused acoustic waves are propagated through the medium in the inner lumen of the waveguide (First end 54 of waveguide 26 being the focus zone through medium 30; Col. 5, Lines 1-40; Fig. 2).
PNG
media_image1.png
650
943
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2
Regarding Claim 2, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1, wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises a curved surface of the acoustic transducer (Structure being surface A of transducer 52 configured concave to transmit toward focus zone 54; Col. 5, Lines 1-20; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 4, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1, wherein the housing comprises a nose section having a tapered sidewall configuration, and wherein a portion of the chamber is defined by the nose section and has a generally conical configuration (Housing 34 with nose section B having a taper and portion of chamber 50 defined by B being generally conical; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 5, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 4, wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves is configured to focus the acoustic waves into the generally conical configuration portion of the chamber (Structure 52 focuses waves into 54 towards portion of chamber 50 defined by B being generally conical; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 6, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 5, wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves is configured to focus the acoustic waves at an angle configured so that the tapered sidewall of the nose section does not interfere with the waves (Structure 52 focuses waves into focal point 54 via its radius of curvature (Col. 5, Lines 1-20) prior to tapered side walls of nose section B and therefore does not interfere with the waves; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 7, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 4, wherein the nose section comprises (Nose section B with tip 58 with opening 56, wherein 12 around waveguide 26 extends through opening 56 of housing 34, bonds/seals against 12 around waveguide 26; Col. 4, Lines 53-67; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 11, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1, wherein the medium comprises a fluid (Acoustic coupling fluid 30; Col. 5, Lines 20-30; Fig. 2).
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.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A).
Regarding Claim 9, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the (26; Fig. 2) has an inner diameter of 1-3 mm. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of frequency band requirements, since it has been held that discovering the optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the Art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding Claim 10, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein an inner diameter of the waveguide is chosen to ensure lossless propagation of the acoustic wave through the medium. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date the claimed invention for the purpose of applying a known technique (diameter sizing) to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results of lossless propagation.
Regarding Claim 12, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the medium (30; Fig. 2) comprises water, saline solution, mineral oil, a plastic material, or an epoxy material. However, this would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention for the purpose of being widely available materials, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Claim(s) 3 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Hassler (DE 3739392 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 2. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the chamber (50; Fig. 2) is further defined by the curved surface of the acoustic transducer. However, Hassler (DE 3739392 A1) teaches wherein the chamber is further defined by the surface of the acoustic transducer (Hassler: Chamber 46 bound by surface 10 of shock wave source/transducer 4; Para. 0011,0019; Fig. 1). Hassler and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising chambers filled with a medium for propagating acoustic waves. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Hassler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the chamber is further defined by the curved surface of the acoustic transducer for the purpose of transmitting acoustic waves further inward of the chamber.
Regarding Claim 16, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the structure (Structure being surface A of transducer 52; Examiner Annotated Lum Fig. 2) configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises one or more lenses. However, Hassler (DE 3739392 A1) teaches wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises one or more lenses (Hassler: Structure to focus at points F1/F2 comprise plano-concave lens 30 and biconvex lens 18; Para. 0013, 0017; Fig. 1). Hassler and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising chambers filled with a medium for propagating acoustic waves. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Hassler would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises one or more lenses for the purpose of adjustment of focusing positions (Hassler: Para. 0020).
Regarding Claim 17, Lum et al. as modified by Hassler disclose the waveguide assembly recited in claim 16, wherein the lenses comprise a focusing lens and a straightening lens, wherein the focusing lens is configured to focus the acoustic waves toward the straightening lens, and the straightening lens is configured to straighten the acoustic waves and direct the acoustic waves toward the focus zone (Hassler: Plano-concave/focusing lens 30 focuses towards biconvex/straightening lens 18 with 18 directing toward focus zone F1; Para. 0013, 0017; Fig. 1).
Regarding Claim 18, Lum et al. as modified by Hassler disclose the waveguide assembly recited in claim 17, wherein the focusing lens comprises a concave lens and the straightening lens comprises a convex lens (Hassler: Plano-concave/focusing lens 30 focuses towards biconvex/straightening lens 18 with 18 directing toward focus zone F1; Para. 0013, 0017; Fig. 1).
Claim(s) 8 and 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Mahoney et al. (US 10,912,620 B2).
Regarding Claim 8, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the (26; Fig. 2) is constructed of a nickel titanium alloy. However, Mahoney et al. (US 10,912,620 B2) teaches wherein the guide is constructed of a nickel titanium alloy (Mahoney: Flexible tube 102 of nickel titanium “nitinol” alloy; Col. 10, Lines 24-60; Fig. 2). Mahoney et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields of flexible surgical devices. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Mahoney et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the waveguide is constructed of a nickel titanium alloy for the purpose of superelastic properties (Mahoney: Col. 9, Lines 35-43), since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416.
Regarding Claim 24, Lum et al. discloses a system for delivering focused acoustic energy, comprising: the waveguide assembly (Waveguide assembly 10; Col. 4, Lines 35-55; Fig. 1-2) recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose a continuum robot to which the waveguide assembly is operatively connected, the continuum robot comprising a concentric tube structure through which the waveguide extends, the concentric tube structure being configured to be controlled robotically and comprising an actuatable tip configured to form a bend when actuated, wherein the waveguide is configured to be delivered through the tip.
However, Mahoney et al. (US 10,912,620 B2) teaches wherein a continuum robot to which the guide assembly is operatively connected, the continuum robot comprising a concentric tube structure through which the guide extends, the concentric tube structure being configured to be controlled robotically and comprising an actuatable tip configured to form a bend when actuated, wherein the guide is configured to be delivered through the tip (Mahoney: Continuum robot 20 comprising actuator 30 for actuating nested/concentric tube structure 22, each comprising superelastic material for curvature, through which guide 26 extends; Col. 9, Lines 10-45; Fig. 1-2). Mahoney et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields of flexible surgical devices. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Mahoney et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a continuum robot to which the waveguide assembly is operatively connected, the continuum robot comprising a concentric tube structure through which the waveguide extends, the concentric tube structure being configured to be controlled robotically and comprising an actuatable tip configured to form a bend when actuated, wherein the waveguide is configured to be delivered through the tip for the purpose of providing a high degree of dexterity of the waveguide in a location where manual access is impracticable (Mahoney: Col. 2, Lines 10-20).
Regarding Claim 25, Lum et al. as modified by Mahoney et al. discloses the system recited in claim 24, wherein the continuum robot comprises a robotic control unit configured to impart translational and rotational movement to nested tubes of the concentric tube structure, and wherein the waveguide is configured to pass through the continuum robot and the concentric tube structure with the tip of the waveguide passing through and projecting from the actuatable tip of the nested tube structure (Mahoney: Continuum robot 20 comprising actuator 30 for rotationally and translating nested/concentric tube structure 22, each comprising superelastic material for curvature, through which guide 26 extends; Col. 9, Lines 10-45; Fig. 1-2).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Etchells et al. (US 2005/0154309 A1).
Regarding Claim 13, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose further comprising one or more ports configured to circulate fluid through the chamber to provide cooling of the medium and to facilitate the removal of dissolved gasses in the medium filling the chamber and the waveguide. However, Etchells et al. (US 2005/0154309 A1) teaches further comprising one or more ports configured to circulate fluid through the chamber to provide cooling of the medium and to facilitate the removal of dissolved gasses in the medium filling the chamber and the waveguide (Etchells: Ports 713 circulate fluid through chamber 706 for degassing/removal of dissolved gas and cooling; Para. 0039-0040,0047-0048; Fig. 1-3). Etchells et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasound systems. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Etchells et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising one or more ports configured to circulate fluid through the chamber to provide cooling of the medium for the purpose of ensuring the medium is the required temperature for cooling the acoustic transducer (Etchells: Para. 0041) and to facilitate the removal of dissolved gasses in the medium filling the chamber and the waveguide for the purpose of attenuation of ultrasound signal during a HIFU procedure to be manageable (Etchells: Para. 0037).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Kondo et al. (US 4,653,504 A).
Regarding Claim 14, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the housing (34; Fig. 2) is constructed from a rigid plastic material that is acoustically matched to the medium and that has an absorption coefficient . However, Kondo et al. (US 4,653,504 A) teaches wherein the housing is constructed from a rigid plastic material that is acoustically matched to the medium and that has an absorption coefficient to cause residual acoustic energy to be absorbed and converted to thermal energy without causing temperature increase in the housing plastic (Both follow from Kondo: Casing 26 made of plastics with acoustic impedance nearly equal to that of living body and medium; Col. 9, Lines 15-30; Fig. 9). Kondo et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasound systems. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Kondo et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the housing is constructed from a rigid plastic material that is acoustically matched to the medium and that has an absorption coefficient to cause residual acoustic energy to be absorbed and converted to thermal energy without causing temperature increase in the housing plastic for the purpose of minimizing reflections and improve quality output (Kondo: Col. 1, Lines 30-40).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Rabiner et al. (US 7,503,895 B2) and Nikolovski et al. (WO 2016/087719 A1).
Regarding Claim 15, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a plastic sheath filled with pressurized air to act as an additional acoustic impedance barrier to limit the emission of acoustic energy from the steerable waveguide in high intensity applications. However, Rabiner et al. (US 7,503,895 B2) teaches further comprising a plastic sheath to act as an additional acoustic impedance barrier to limit the emission of acoustic energy from the steerable waveguide in high intensity applications (Rabiner: Col. 13, Lines 20-45; Col. 1, Lines 15-40). Rabiner et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasonic waveguides. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Rabiner et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention further comprising a plastic sheath to act as an additional acoustic impedance barrier to limit the emission of acoustic energy from the steerable waveguide in high intensity applications for the purpose of acoustic dampening properties (Rabiner: Col. 13, Lines 20-30).
Lum et al. as modified by Rabiner et al. fails to explicitly disclose a plastic sheath filled with pressurized air. However, Nikolovski et al. (WO 2016/087719 A1) teaches a sheath filled with pressurized air (Nikolovski: Para. 0050). Nikolovski et al., Rabiner et al., and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasonic waveguides. Modifying Lum et al. as modified by Rabiner et al. with teachings of Nikolovski et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein a plastic sheath filled with pressurized air for the purpose of ensuring an intense and localized acoustic source (Nikolovski: Para. 0050).
Claim(s) 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Baron et al. (GB 1300159 A).
Regarding Claim 19, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1. Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises a reflector. However, Baron et al. (GB 1300159 A) teaches wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises a reflector (Baron: Mirror/reflector 7; Pg. 2, Left Col, Lines 5-20; Fig. 1a). Baron et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasonic waveguides. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Baron et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art of the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the structure configured to focus the acoustic waves comprises a reflector for the purpose of being a common method of directing waves.
Regarding Claim 20, Lum et al. as modified by Baron et al. disclose the waveguide assembly recited in claim 19, wherein the reflector comprises a concave focusing surface configured to focus the acoustic waves toward the focus zone (Baron: Mirror/reflector 7 described as convergent, is concave; Pg. 2, Left Col, Lines 5-20; Fig. 1a).
Regarding Claim 21, Lum et al. as modified by Baron et al. disclose the waveguide assembly recited in claim 20, wherein the reflector comprises a concave focusing surface comprises a mirror surface (Baron: Mirror/reflector 7 described as convergent, is concave; Pg. 2, Left Col, Lines 5-20; Fig. 1a ).
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Müller et al. (US 6,238,386 B1).
Regarding Claim 22, Lum et al. discloses the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1, wherein the first end of the waveguide comprises a receiving surface, wherein the first end of the waveguide is configured to collect acoustic waves received via the receiving surface and to direct the collected acoustic waves along the length of the waveguide (Waveguide 26 with first end 54; Col. 5, Lines 14-20; Fig. 3). Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose wherein the first end of the waveguide comprises a receiving surface (54; Fig. 3) having a surface area that is increased over that of a cross section of the waveguide distal of the first end.
However, Müller et al. (US 6,238,386 B1) teaches wherein the first end of the waveguide comprises a receiving surface having a surface area that is increased over that of a cross section of the waveguide distal of the first end (Müller: See horn shaped section 24-26 in Fig. 5; Col. 3, Lines 47-67). Müller et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasonic waveguides. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Müller et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the first end of the waveguide comprises a receiving surface having a surface area that is increased over that of a cross section of the waveguide distal of the first end for the purpose of modifying the amplitude of the acoustic transducer to increase inversely proportionally to its diameter (Müller: Col. 3, Lines 60-67).
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lum et al. (US 5,507,294 A) in view of Bonutti et al. (US 2013/0253387 A1).
Regarding Claim 23, Lum et al. discloses a system for delivering focused acoustic energy, comprising: the waveguide assembly recited in claim 1 (Waveguide assembly 10; Col. 4, Lines 35-55; Fig. 1-2);
and an actuator unit to which the waveguide assembly is operatively connected (64; Col. 6, Lines 1-10; Fig. 4), the actuator comprising a steerable outer tube structure through which the waveguide extends (Outer tube 12/82 through which waveguide 26 extends; Fig. 2,5),
Lum et al. fails to explicitly disclose the outer tube structure comprising a tip portion (Tip portion 14; Fig. 1) that is actuatable to form a curve, wherein the actuator unit comprises an actuator that is manually actuatable to selectively form the curve in the tip portion and wherein waveguide follows the curve through the tip portion.
However, Bonutti et al. (US 2013/0253387 A1) teaches the outer tube structure comprising a tip portion that is actuatable to form a curve, wherein the actuator unit comprises an actuator that is manually actuatable to selectively form the curve in the tip portion and wherein waveguide follows the curve through the tip portion. (Bonutti: Cannula/outer tube 310 has flexibility to navigate curvilinear pathways and effector/waveguide 110 extends entirely through 310; Para. 0213,0218-0219,0169; Fig. 35). Bonutti et al. and Lum et al. are in similar fields comprising ultrasonic waveguides. Modifying Lum et al. with teachings of Bonutti et al. would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention wherein the outer tube structure comprising a tip portion that is actuatable to form a curve, wherein the actuator unit comprises an actuator that is manually actuatable to selectively form the curve in the tip portion and wherein waveguide follows the curve through the tip portion for the purpose of navigating curvilinear pathways within a body (Bonutti: Para. 0213).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US-20130090576-A1, US-8746399-B2, US-11898993-B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER B OLSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3041. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00am -4:00pm.
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, Dedei Hammond can be reached at (571)270-7938. 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.
/JENNIFER B OLSON/Examiner, Art Unit 2837
/DEDEI K HAMMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2837
Prosecution Insights