DETAILED ACTION
This is the First Office Action in response to the above identified patent
application filed on December 31, 2024.
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 .
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 2-6 and 12 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 2, the limitation “a plurality of claws configured to hold an ultrasound probe with a maximum thickness between 10mm to 200mm” is awkwardly worded making the limitation unclear. Should the limitation be amended by removing the term “maximum” to recite - - a plurality of claws configured to hold an ultrasound probe with a thickness between 10mm to 200mm - - making the claim clear?
Claim 4, the limitation “long-threaded screw” is unclear because the term “long” is a relative term. The claims must clearly define the metes and bounds of the desired patent protection.
Claim 12, the limitation “the syringe” lacks proper antecedent basis. To provide compact prosecution, claim 12 has been interpreted as depending on claim 11).
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) 1, 2, 7-10 and 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostrow (USP 6,009,346) in view of Klopotek et al. (USPub 2008/0027328).
Ostrow teaches an apparatus comprising: a modular gripper (holding ultrasound device 60) configured to hold an ultrasound probe (60); and a gel dispenser device (82) configured to release gel onto a region of a patient.
Ostrow does not teach a gel detection sensor configured to detect the sufficiency of gel on the region of patient's body that receives the gel. The prior art to Klopotek teaches an ultrasound probe (26) having a gel dispensing device (13) for applying gel to a patient, the gel dispensing device having a gel detection sensor (section [0076] of written description) configured to detect the sufficiency of gel on the region of patient's body that receives the gel, and dispense gel in response to the signal from the gel detection sensor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the claimed device to provide the ultrasound prob of Ostrow with a gel detection sensor configured to detect the sufficiency of gel on the region of patient's body, as taught by Klopotek, motivation being to automatically provide a consistent amount of gel when performing an ultrasound.
Claim 2: Ostrow illustrates the gripper having claws, but does not specifically teach the claws configured to hold a probe having a thickness of 10mm to 200mm. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to configure the claws of Ostrow to hold a probe having a thickness of 10mm to 200mm, since such a modification would have involved a mere change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7: Klopotek teaches the gel detection sensor estimates (determines) the sufficiency of gel on the surface in contact with the probe.
Claim 8: Klopotek teaches detection of gel between the probe and patient's body is based on “optical reflection or ultrasound reflection” (section [0076]).
Claim 9: Klopotek teaches the actuation of the gel dispenser is dependent on the detection of gel on the surface.
Claim 10: Ostrow teaches the gel dispenser comprises a reservoir (82) for ultrasound gel, an actuator (85) to pressurize the gel, and a tube (84) to dispense the gel.
Claim 13: Ostrow teaches the actuator is connected to the reservoir with a removable connection (inherent) to allow replacement and refilling of the reservoir.
Claim 14: Klopotek teaches a tube (for the gel) pointed to a forwarding path of the probe.
Claim 15: Ostrow illustrates the gripper is connected to a plate configured to mount to a robotic arm.
Claim 16: Klopotek teaches a processor (102), wherein the processor is configured to receive the signal from the gel detection sensor; determine a sufficiency of an amount of gel on the region of the patient's body; and cause the gel dispenser device to release the gel in response to the amount of gel on the region of the patient's body be insufficient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art does not teach the first claw and the second claw fixed a slider housing (claim 3), and the reservoir comprises a syringe with one fixed end (claim 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note the prior art having a gel dispensing device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM C JOYCE whose telephone number is (571)272-7107. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5:00.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 571-270-7778. 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.
/WILLIAM C JOYCE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
Prosecution Insights