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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 18, 19, 24, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DiMaio et al. (US 2009/0036902, hereinafter DiMaio ‘902).
In re claim 11, DiMaio ‘902 teaches an apparatus to treat a patient, the apparatus comprising:
a first arm configured to couple to a treatment probe having an elongate axis;
a second arm configured to couple to an imaging probe comprising an ultrasound probe having an elongate axis (0045) that at least partially defines a sagittal image plane (0045, note a 3D include at least a sagittal image plane; 0170, 0172);
a processor configured to:
display an ultrasound image obtained with the imaging probe on a screen of a user interface to enable a user to align the treatment probe with the imaging probe (fig. 22A; 0127);
move the treatment probe to a plurality of physical locations (0049, 0052, 0090, 0091, 0095-0099);
receive a plurality of user inputs on the ultrasound image corresponding to translation of the treatment probe from a first physical position to a second physical position (0090, 0091, 0095-0099, 0108-0116);
determine mapping of image coordinates to physical coordinates in response to the plurality of user inputs on the ultrasound image (009-0099, 0112, 0118-0120, 0131, 0154).
In re claim 12, DiMaio ‘902 teaches wherein the processor is configured to: prompt the user to identify a first location in an image proximate the treatment probe tip at a first physical position; receive an input that the first location proximate the treatment probe tip has been identified in the ultrasound image with the probe tip at the first physical position; provide a first marker identifying the first location in the ultrasound image proximate the probe tip; prompt the user to identify a second location in the ultrasound image corresponding to a second physical position proximate the probe tip, the second physical position different from the first physical position; receive an input that the probe tip has been identified in the second location in the ultrasound image; and provide a second marker identifying the second location in the ultrasound image (0091-0099).
In re claim 18, DiMaio ‘902 teaches wherein the processor is configured to measure image coordinates of the treatment probe at a plurality of physical locations corresponding to movement of the tip of the treatment probe (0049, 0053, 0058, 0059, 0060, 0090, 0113, 0127, 0131).
In re claim 19, DiMaio ‘902 teaches wherein the plurality of physical locations comprises a plurality of axial locations (0170, 0173, 0152, 0154, also in a 3D real world and imaging world, axial location always there).
In re claim 24, DiMaio ‘902 teaches wherein the mapping function comprises a rotation angle to rotate the image shown to a user to compensate for an angle of the treatment probe (450) with respect to an imaging probe (0061, 0091, 0096, 0140, 0165, 0167, 0168).
In re claim 25, DiMaio ‘902 teaches wherein the ultrasound image comprises a real time ultrasound image (0049, 0118, 0119, 0120, 0121).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio ‘902 in view of Makower et al. (US 2005/0240147, hereinafter Makower ‘147)
In re claim 13, DiMaio ‘’902 teaches wherein the treatment probe comprises an elongate carrier coupled to a linkage, but fails to teach wherein an elongate support connected to the treatment probe is configured to remain stationary in the image when the treatment probe moves to the plurality of locations.
Makower ‘147 teaches wherein an elongate support connected to the treatment probe is configured to remain stationary in the image when the treatment probe moves to the plurality of locations (0152, fig. 3G, 532, and 540, note that 532 can remain stationary while 540 moves because 540 is a separate tube; 0157, 0199, 0200; and it would have been obvious when 532 and the like is stationary, the image of it is stationary.).
Furthermore:
In re claim 14, Makower ‘147 teaches wherein the elongate support comprises a reference marker visible in the image (0152, fig. 3G, 536).
In re claim 15, Makower ‘147 teaches wherein the reference marker comprises a plurality of markers spaced apart at regular intervals to define distances in the image (0152, fig. 3G, 536).
In re claim 16, Makower ‘147 teaches wherein the plurality of markers comprises a plurality of openings formed in the elongate support (0152, fig. 3G, 536 is on 532).
In re claim 17, Makower ‘147 teaches wherein the plurality of openings is connected to an aspiration channel to remove material from a surgical site (0152).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of DiMaio ‘902 to include the features of Makower ‘147 in order to remove unwanted material while advancing targeted instrument.
Claim(s) 20, 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio ‘902 in view of Azure (US 2009/0076494, hereinafter Azure ‘494).
In re claim 20, DiMaio ‘902 fails to teach wherein the treatment probe comprises an energy source to release energy from the probe at the plurality of locations.
Azure ‘494 teaches wherein the treatment probe comprises an energy source to release energy from the probe at the plurality of locations (0056, 0057, 0059, 0060).
In re claim 26, Azure ‘494 also teaches wherein the treatment probe tip comprises an energy source configured to direct energy from the energy source radially outward from the probe tip (0014, 0037, 0047, 0057, 0058, 0060).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of DiMaio ‘902 to include the features of Azure ‘494 in order to precisely control the energy application to the target tissue, and control thermal effects in the desired heating ranges.
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio ‘902 and Azure ‘494 in view of Nixon et al. (US 2009/0171371, hereinafter Nixon ‘371).
In re claim 21, DiMaio ‘902 and Azure ‘494 fails to teach further comprising: an attachment device coupled to the treatment probe, the attachment device comprising a measurement scale configured to indicate a physical position of the energy source; wherein the processor is configured to show, on a display, a scale overlaid on an ultrasound image to view the energy source moving in relation to the scale shown on the display. Note that DiMaio ‘902 and Azure ‘494 as shown above teach the energy source of the treatment probe and its physical position. The combine device fails to teach the attachment device comprising a measurement scale as such.
Nixon ‘371 teaches a similar system (see fig.1) as DiMaio ‘902 and teaches an attachment device coupled to the treatment probe, the attachment device comprising a measurement scale configured to indicate a physical position of the treatment probe
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of DiMaio ‘902 to include the features of Azure ‘494 in order to precisely control the energy application to the target tissue, and control thermal effects in the desired heating ranges, and to include the features of Nixon ‘371 in order to allow more precise movement.
Claim(s) 22, 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DiMaio ‘902 in view of Nixon ‘371.
In re claims 22-23, DiMaio ‘902 fails to teach claim 22: wherein the processor comprises instructions for a mapping function comprising one or more scaling factors to scale the image coordinates to the physical coordinates, and fails to teach claim 23: wherein the mapping function comprises the one or more scaling factors and a fixed aspect ratio.
Nixon ‘371 teaches claim 22: wherein the processor comprises instructions for a mapping function comprising one or more scaling factors to scale the image coordinates to the physical coordinates (fig. 15-18, 0080-0088), and fails to teach claim 23: wherein the mapping function comprises the one or more scaling factors and a fixed aspect ratio (fig. 15-18, 0080-0088).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of DiMaio ‘902 to include the features of Nixon ‘371 in order to allow more precise movement.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights