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 .
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. In the current Abstract filed on 01/23/2025, the word count is 41.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because several are of poor image quality. Specifically, FIG. 4B it is unclear what element 14 is intended to recite. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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 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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
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) 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
The term “software module” is used in claim(s) 1, for analyzing the information of the acoustic emission signals, reflection and transmission data following the operation of each transducer at multiple ultrasound frequencies and analyzing and comparing the reflection patterns received from adjacent parts of the same transceivers invokes 35 USC 112(f).
The term “classification system” is used in claim(s) 1, for analyzing the acoustic signals for each transceiver and evaluating the quality of the skin contact invokes 35 USC 112(f).
The term, “module””/”system” is a non-structural generic placeholder that does not include any specific structure for performing the accompany functions. See MPEP 2181.I.A: The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, paragraph 6: "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for." Welker Bearing Co., v. PHD, Inc., 550 F.3d 1090, 1096, 89 USPQ2d 1289, 1293-94 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Massachusetts Inst. of Tech. v. Abacus Software, 462 F.3d 1344, 1354, 80 USPQ2d 1225, 1228 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Personalized Media, 161 F.3d at 704, 48 USPQ2d at 1886–87; Mas-Hamilton Group v. LaGard, Inc., 156 F.3d 1206, 1214-1215, 48 USPQ2d 1010, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) they are 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 these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The claim limitation of “software module” does not have structural information disclosed in the specification. The phrase, “software module” is interpreted to include functions as defined in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
The claim limitation of “classification system” does not have structural information disclosed in the specification. The phrase, “classification system” is interpreted to include functions as defined in the specification as performing the claimed functions, and equivalents thereof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
As discussed above, the claim limitations below are interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 (f).
Claim 1: “software module”
Claim 1: “classification system”
In the specification, there is no mention of any hardware (i.e., processor, computer, memory non-transitory computer-readable medium). Note; the recitation of the term “hardware” in line 4 of the Background of the invention, is not sufficient. The drawings do not provide any further detail. However, one of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the specification, the drawing and the original claims to disclose any particular structure that achieves the disclosed functionality. Indeed, the specification meticulously defines the functional requirements (i.e., inputs/outputs), and decision rules for the software module’s functions; the specification is completely silent with regard the underlying computational algorithms for image inversion, signal analysis thresholding, and pattern comparison as generically defined in the claims.
These limitations each fail to comply with the written description requirement as the limitations are unbound functional imitations which cover all ways of performing the respective functions and inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of such an invention. The limitations therefore fails to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP 2181.II.A.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Examiners Notes
Due to the numerous claim language issues that the Examiner has identified, Applicant is requested to check through the entire claim set to ensure that the claim drafting follows the guideline in MPEP 608.01 to ensure that proper antecedent basis and consistent claim language are practiced. When the Applicant submits amendments regarding the claims in response to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in this Office Action, the Examiner would prefer that Applicant submit two sets of claims: set 1) includes indicators for the status of the claim and all marked amendments to the claims without mistakes; and set 2) claims that contains a clean version of all the amendments without mistakes.
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 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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:
line 4: “the information”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes information. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 4-5: “the acoustic emission signals, reflection, and transmission data”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes acoustic emission signals, reflection and transmission data. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 5: “the operation”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an operation. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 5: “each transducer”: It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes each transducers refers to the ultrasound of transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 7: the second recitation of “a software module”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a software module” in line 4. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the software module. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
line 7: “the reflection patterns”:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the reflection pattern is indicative of the reflection data. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from the reflection data. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the reflection pattern is indicative of the reflection data. Appropriate correction is required.
line 8: “the same transceivers”:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
It is unclear if the same transceivers refers to or is separate from a plurality of ultrasound transceivers and/or each transceiver. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they are. Appropriate correction is required.
line 9: “the acoustic signals”:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
It is unclear if the acoustic signals refers to or is separate from the acoustic emission signals. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes it refers to the acoustic emission signals. Appropriate correction is required.
line 9: “each transceiver”: It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers”. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they are. Appropriate correction is required.
line 10: “the quality”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a quality. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 10: “the skin contact”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a skin contact. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 11: “the device”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a device. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 11-12: “the quality of the acoustic transmitted and or reflected signals for each transceiver”:
For the recitations of: “the quality” and “the acoustic transmitted and or reflected signals” there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the phrase refers to the previous recitation of quality. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
The phrase “and or” is grammatically incorrect and should recite “and/or”. Appropriate correction is required.
For the recitation of: “reflected signals” it is unclear if the term refers to or is separate from the reflection patterns and/or reflection data. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the phrase refers to the reflection data. Appropriate correction is required.
For the recitation “each transceiver”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers”. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes each transceiver refers to the plurality of ultrasound transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 13: “the user”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a user. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 13: “the adherence”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 13-14: specific areas or specific transceivers”:
The term “specific” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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. Appropriate correction is required.
It is unclear if the areas refers to or is separate from the patients skin. It is unclear if these specific transceivers refers to or is separate from a plurality of ultrasound transceivers, or each transceivers, or the same transceivers. Inconsistent claim language is consistently used throughout the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the specific transceivers refers to the plurality of ultrasound transceivers. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the specific areas refer to areas of the patients skin. Appropriate correction is required.
line 15: “the skin contact”: There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the phrase refers to the previous recitation of the skin contact. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 2:
line 2: “the feedback is presented on each transceiver”. Its unclear if the “presented” refers to a physical presentation on the each transceiver or whether the feedback is generated for each transceiver separately to be viewable by the user. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes that feedback is generated for each transceiver separately to be viewable by the user. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3:
line 1: “the visualization”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 1: “the transceivers”:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers”. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they refer to the plurality of ultrasound transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 4:
line 1: ‘or an automatic system”. It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “an automatic system” recited in line 13 of claim 1. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the automatic system (i.e., the same). Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
line 2: “the specific transceivers”:
The term “specific” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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. Appropriate correction is required.
It is unclear if these specific transceivers refers to or is separate from a plurality of ultrasound transceivers, or each transceivers, or the same transceivers. Inconsistent claim language is consistently used throughout the claims. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the specific transceivers refers to the plurality of ultrasound transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 2: the term in quotation marks “intermediate”. Claim positively recites “intermediate” in quotation marks. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within the quotation marks is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an intermediate score. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3: “its adherence”. It is unclear what “its adherence refers to in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the term refers the transceiver of the plurality of transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5:
line 1: the term in quotation marks “bad”.
Claim positively recites “bad” in quotation marks. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within the quotation marks is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. Appropriate correction is required.
The term “bad” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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 examination purposes, the Examiner assumes poor quality. Appropriate correction is required.
line 1: “the transceivers”:
There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
It is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers”. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they refer to the plurality of ultrasound transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3: “the imaging processing”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a imaging processing. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 6:
lines 1-2: ‘the patient skin”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required. The phrase should recite “the patient’s skin” as its recited in line 3 of claim 1. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7:
line 3: “the acoustic input”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the acoustic input is indicative of the acoustic emission signals. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 3-4: “the ultrasonic contact quality”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the phrase refers to the quality. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 1-4: it is unclear how any of the steps defined in the claim 7 evaluate a contact quality as set forth in the preamble. The context of the claim requires no reasonable steps which clearly indicate evaluation of contact quality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8:
line 2: “the emitter location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an emitter location. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 9:
line 2: “at least one sensor said at least one sensor”. It is unclear if the sensor refers to or is separate from the plurality of transceivers. Upon review of the specification the sensors are indeed identified as transceivers. In other words, the claim recitation merely amounts to a broader term to define transceivers, but since claim 7 refers to a plurality of transceivers the claimed recitation of “at least one sensor said at least one sensor” is indeed ambiguous and the phrase is grammatically redundant. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes the at least one sensor refers to a transceiver of the plurality of transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 2-3: “the emitter location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an emitter location. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 10:
line 1: “each transducer”: Its is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers”. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they refer to the plurality of transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 2: the term in quotation marks “high”. Claim positively recites “high” in quotation marks. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within the quotation marks is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a any value above a lower value is considered high. Appropriate correction is required.
lines 2-3: claim positively recites (greater than 700 KHz) & (20 KHz -700 Khz). The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within parenthesis is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. The claim is indefinite regarding the metes and bounds of greater than 700 kHz (i.e., the upper limit of the frequency is not specified). In addition, the first recitation of KHz should recite kilohertz (kHz).. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes at least one frequency above 700 kHz and at least one additional frequency somewhere between 20 kHz and 700 kHz. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3 & line 4: “the system”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an ultrasound system. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 3: “the signals”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes signals. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 4: “all transceivers”. Its is unclear if the phrase refers to or is separate from “a plurality of ultrasound transceivers” in claim 1 or “each transceiver” as defined in claim 10.. Consistent claim language is required when referring to the same term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they refer to each of the plurality of transceivers. Appropriate correction is required.
line 4: “each frequency” it is unclear if “each frequency refers to the frequencies positively recited in the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes they refer to both a frequency in both the high and low frequency ranges. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11:
line 1: “the adherence”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an adherence. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 1, the term “specific” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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. Appropriate correction is required.
line 1 & in line 3: “transceiver/s” it is unclear if the term refers to a transceiver or transceivers. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a transceiver. Appropriate correction is required.
line 2-3: the term in quotation marks “low quality contact”. Claim positively recites “low quality contact” in quotation marks. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within the quotation marks is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes poor quality. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3: “lack to show local rejection”. The phrase is grammatically incorrect. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes shows poor reflection. Appropriate correction is required.
lines 3-4: “the transmitter area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an area of transmission. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 4: “some or all lower frequencies”. These phrase is open-ended and lacks a clear upper or lower bound rendering the scope of the claims ambiguous. Accordingly, the metes and bound of the claims are indefinite. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes any frequency considered low. Appropriate correction is required.
line 4: “the emitter location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an emitter location. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 12:
line 1-2: the term in quotation marks “low quality contact”. Claim positively recites “low quality contact” in quotation marks. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within the quotation marks is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes poor quality. Appropriate correction is required.
line 2: “the system user”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). In addition, its unclear what the phrase means in the context of the claim. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a system. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 13:
line 1-2: the term in quotation marks “low quality contact”. Claim positively recites “low quality contact” in quotation marks. The scope of the claim is indeterminate with respect to if the limitation within the quotation marks is required. Thus, the claim is indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes poor quality. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14:
lines 1-4: the claim is a “use claim” that does not positively set forth any step and therefore is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Appropriate correction is required.
line 2: “transceiver/s” it is unclear if the term refers to a transceiver or transceivers. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a transceiver. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3: “significantly different”. The term, “significantly” in claim is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is 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 examination purposes, the Examiner assumes anything different. Appropriate correction is required.
line 3-4: “the same CMUT transmitter area”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). In addition, the claim does not positively set forth what CMUT refers to in the context of the claim nor does the specification refer or provide clarity on the term “CMUT”. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes a CMUT transmitter area. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 15:
lines 1-3: is a “use claim” that does not positively set forth any step and therefore is indefinite. See MPEP 2173.05(q). Appropriate correction is required.
In addition, line 2: “the use”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Note; the term itself is not what defines the claim as a “use claim”. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
Claim 16:
lines 1-4: “wherein the transceivers that show no skin contract are defined as transceivers that show local reflection at the emitter location along with 180° phase inversion, or a transceiver that do not show local reflection and fails to communicate with other transceivers in all the tested frequencies.”, is indefinite. Its unclear how the transceivers (plural) that show no skin contact can logically be defined using a singular “transceiver” that do not show local reflection and fails to communicate with other transceivers in all the tested frequencies. In addition, the behavior of the defined categories is ambiguous; hence, the tor examination purposes, the Examiner assumes wherein the transceivers that show no skin contact are those that exhibit either local reflection at the emitter location with 180° phase inversion, or do not show local reflection and fail to communicate with other transceivers at all tested frequencies.
line 2: “the emitter location”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes an emitter location. Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required.
line 4: “all the tested frequencies”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as required by MPEP 2173.05(e). Accordingly, proper ordinal numbering and/or antecedent basis is required. In addition, the claim does not set forth any numerical frequencies render the claim ambiguous with respect to the metes and bounds of the recited term. For examination purposes, the Examiner assumes any frequency. Appropriate correction is required.
The dependent claims of the above rejected claims are rejected due to their dependency.
Specification
Due to the numerous claim language issues that the Examiner has identified, above, the specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Specifically, Applicant is requested to check through the entire specification to ensure that the drafting follows the appropriate grammar and consistent term usage.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 1: line 14, “prior to re-evaluating[[e]] the skin contact”.
Claim 7: lines 1-4:
“A method of evaluation of transceiver skin ultrasonic contact quality comprising the steps of: [[by]]
receiving ultrasonic signal feedback comprising of a reflection waveform and a transmission waveform from a plurality of transceivers; and
performing an analysis of the acoustic input to classify the ultrasonic contact quality.” Appropriate correction is required. Note; the suggested claim objection is needed; however, this alone does not obviate the 35 USC § 101 or the 112(b).
Claim 14: line 1, “processing[[/]] or”.
Claim 16: line 2: “the transceivers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 1 recitation positively recites the human body: ““transceivers attached to a patient’s skin”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 7-10 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 7 recites (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), & the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“performing analysis of the acoustic input to classify the ultrasonic contact quality.”
In claims 7, the above recited step fall within the groupings of mathematical concepts and mental process because the steps identified above do not require any implementation beyond the manipulation and evaluation of information itself. The act of analyzing the input to classify ultrasonic contact quality merely relies on manipulating and evaluating waveform data, which constitutes mathematical concepts, and the act of classifying that data reflects evaluative reasoning that can be performed through mental observation and judgement aligning with mental processes. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the analysis is conducted. Therefore, a person would be able to perform through mathematical and mental concepts.
Prong Two: Claims 7 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of “comprising of reflection waveform and transmission waveform from plurality of transceivers”-(claim 7);
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)).
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the information is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using quality contact techniques, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 7 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of receiving ultrasonic signal feedback comprising of reflection waveform and transmission waveform from plurality of transceivers. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Zhu et al (US 2017/0052253 A1) discloses:
¶0004, ‘Ultrasound transducers are known in the art for transmitting ultrasound waves and detecting a reflection or echo of the transmitted wave.”
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
describing the wherein the feedback comprises local reflection measured at the emitter location.-(claim 8). The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing wherein the feedback comprises attenuation signals received by at least one sensors said at least one sensor not located at the emitter location.-(claim 9). The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
describing wherein each transceiver emits at least two ultrasonic frequencies one "high" frequency (greater than 700 KHz) and lower frequencies (20 Khz-700 KHz) and wherein the system analyzes the signals received by all transceivers on the system for each frequency.-(claim 10). The data gathering steps and pre-solution activity are conventional and recited at high level of generality. As such, the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improved to the technology is evident, and the determined visualization of context is not outputted in any way such that the practical benefit is realized.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
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.
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baym et al (US 2017/0273664 A1).
Claim 7: Baym discloses, A method of evaluation of transceiver skin ultrasonic contact quality by receiving ultrasonic signal feedback comprising of reflection waveform and transmission waveform from plurality of transceivers and performing analysis of the acoustic input to classify the ultrasonic contact quality.
-Baym discloses, the process conducted by the controller 106 to evaluate the acoustic coupling quality of multiple ultrasound elements (i.e., transceivers) using their emitted and received ultrasound signals. The controller 106 is programmed and configured to monitor signals from ultrasound elements 102 that indicate the quality of their acoustic coupling with the body. The determining of the quality of acoustic coupling is performed at each ultrasound element. The quality of the acoustic signal coupling is determined utilizing the ultrasound 102, itself. This determination uses one or more ultrasonic signals applied or detected by the ultrasound element. The determining of the quality of acoustic coupling includes the determining of the magnitude of an echo or reflection from the surface of the body. A strong echo signal or reflection nis associated with good coupling. The received ultrasound signals include one or more signal components of the applied ultrasound signals. These ultrasound elements function as body the transmission and receiver, ¶0076, ¶0079-0081, ¶0090-¶0095.
-Baym further discloses a plurality of ultrasound elements, with the control monitoring the acoustic coupling of these elements within one or more arrays, ¶0077, ¶0092. The controller performs analyses with the received electrical signals or values to assess the contact quality. The controller simply omits or discards imaging data received from an ultrasound element that does not meet a contact quality threshold. This mechanism relies on classifying the coupling into acceptable (i.e. good coupling) or unacceptable (i.e., poor contact) categories. The measured quantification is sorted and percentage is determined, ¶0077, ¶0082, ¶0090-0096.
Claim 8: Baym discloses all the elements above in claim 7, Baym discloses, wherein the feedback comprises local reflection measured at the emitter location. (¶0076-0077, ¶0091, ¶0095).
Claims 11 and 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Baym et al (US 2014/0058263 A1, herein Baym ‘63).
Claim 11: Baym ’63 discloses, A method of improving transceiver skin ultrasonic contact quality using ultrasonic feedba