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 Objections
Claims 14-15 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 14, the "one or more anatomical targets” should read --the one or more anatomical targets--.
In claim 15, "the elongate medical device” should read –an elongate medical device-- or the elongate medical device has to be recited in claim 1.
In claim 20, line 1, the "or one” should read --one--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-13 and 17-19 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-12 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because Claim 1 of the instant application corresponds to the parent claim 1.
19043025 (the instant case)
1. An ultrasound imaging system configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound image of a target area, comprising:
an ultrasound probe configured to acquire a plurality of ultrasound images of the target area including one or more anatomical targets,
Claim 1 of US12213835
1. An ultrasound imaging system configured to generate a 3D ultrasound image of a target area, comprising:
an ultrasound probe configured to acquire a plurality of ultrasound images of the target area including one or more anatomical targets,
19043025
the ultrasound probe coupled to a console by an ultrasound probe connector having an optical fiber including one or more core fibers, the console configured to generate the 3D ultrasound image by stitching together the plurality of ultrasound images, starting from a point of reference; and
Claim 1 of US12213835
the ultrasound probe coupled to a console by an ultrasound probe connector having an optical fiber including one or more core fibers, the ultrasound probe being a point of reference for the console to generate the 3D ultrasound image by stitching together the plurality of ultrasound images, starting from the point of reference,
19043025
the console including one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable medium having logic stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes performance of operations including:
transmitting and receiving optical signals along the one or more core fibers;
determining a shape of the one or more core fibers;
Claim 1 of US12213835
the console including one or more processors and non-transitory computer readable medium having logic stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes performance of operations including:
transmitting and receiving optical signals along the one or more core fibers;
determining a shape of the one or more core fibers;
19043025
acquiring the plurality of ultrasound images;
identifying and tracking the one or more anatomical targets within the plurality of ultrasound images;
determining ultrasound probe movement based on the shape of the one or more core fibers in combination with tracking the one or more anatomical targets;
associating the ultrasound probe movement with the plurality of ultrasound images; and
generating the 3D ultrasound image from the plurality of ultrasound images.
Claim 1 of US12213835
acquiring the plurality of ultrasound images;
identifying and tracking the one or more anatomical targets within the plurality of ultrasound images;
determining ultrasound probe movement based on the shape of the one or more core fibers in combination with tracking the one or more anatomical targets;
associating the ultrasound probe movement with the plurality of ultrasound images; and
generating the 3D ultrasound image from the plurality of ultrasound images.
Other clams correspond to each other as follows.
Claims 2-4 of the instant application correspond to claims 2-4 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 5 of the instant application corresponds to claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 6 of the instant application corresponds to claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 7 of the instant application corresponds to claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 8 of the instant application corresponds to claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claims 9 and 17-19 of the instant application correspond to claim 12 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 10 of the instant application corresponds to claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 11 of the instant application corresponds to claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 12 of the instant application corresponds to claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim 13 of the instant application corresponds to claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 12213835.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 1, 8, and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker (WO 2018206473), hereinafter Kruecker, in view of Zalev et al (US 20140036091), hereinafter Zalev, and further in view of Shiran et al (US 20210045716), hereinafter Shiran.
Regarding claim 1, Kruecker teaches an ultrasound imaging system (10) (“An ultrasound (US) imaging device 10”; p. 7, l. 12-27; fig. 1) configured to generate a three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound image (“If the US probe 12 includes only a linear ultrasound transducer array then the 3D-US image acquisition UI 48 may instruct the user to sweep the US probe 12 through a spatial distance to provide three-dimensional ultrasound echo data for generating the 3D-US image.", p. 10, l. 16-19) of a target area (“the US probe may be a transcutaneous US probe used in monitoring a liver or breast procedure.” p. 7, l. 25-27), comprising:
an ultrasound probe (12) configured to acquire a plurality of ultrasound images of the target area including one or more anatomical targets (“the prostate”; p. 10, l. 5) (“a live ultrasound imaging method is disclosed. An ultrasound imaging device is operated to acquire a time series of live ultrasound images using an ultrasound probe.”; p. 3, l. 21-23; “live ultrasound images of the time series of live ultrasound images”; p. 4, l. 8-9; Fig. 1; “the acquiring and displaying of the time series of live ultrasound images.” Claim 14), the ultrasound probe coupled to a console (20, 22, 24) (Fig. 1) by an ultrasound probe connector (15) (“The ultrasound imaging device 10 is operatively connected with an US probe 12 to perform ultrasound imaging using the ultrasound probe 12…The illustrative ultrasound probe 12 is connected with the ultrasound imaging system 10 via cabling 15”; p. 7, l. 16-27), the console configured to generate the 3D ultrasound image (“the 3D-US image.", p. 10, l. 16-19) by stitching together the plurality of ultrasound images (“the 3D-US image acquisition UI 48 may instruct the user to sweep the US probe 12 through a spatial distance to provide three-dimensional ultrasound echo data for generating the 3D-US image.", p. 10, l. 16-19), starting from a point of reference (a point of reference set by the “orientation measured by the probe tracker 28” p. 11, l. 1-11) (“Each live ultrasound image is tagged with a corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for that live ultrasound image”; p. 10, l. 25-27. “Each US image is tagged with the corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image. The term "tag" connotes that the corresponding orientation measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image is associated with the US image in data storage so that the electronic processor 30 executing the instructions of the non-transitory storage medium 32 can retrieve the corresponding orientation and recognize it to be the orientation of the US probe 12 used when acquiring the corresponding US image.” p. 11, l. 1-11);
the console (20, 22, 24) including one or more processors (30) and non-transitory computer readable medium (32) having logic stored thereon (40, 50) (“With continuing reference to FIGURE 1, the interventional imaging device further includes an electronic processor 30 that is operatively connected with the US imaging device 10 and the display 20, 22, and with a non-transitory storage medium 32 that stores instructions readable and executable by the electronic data processor 30 to operate the ultrasound imaging device 10 to perform operations as disclosed herein.” p. 8, l. 27 – p. 9, l. 9; “Typically, the UI 40 implemented by the electronic processor 30 operates the ultrasound imaging device 10 to acquire and display a time series of live ultrasound images”; p. 9, l. 25-26; Fig. 1) that, when executed by the one or more processors, causes performance of operations including:
transmitting and receiving optical signals along the one or more core fibers (“In other contemplated embodiments in which the US probe is visible, e.g. a transcutaneous US probe disposed external of the patient, the probe tracker 28 may utilize optical tracking using optical reflectors or the like mounted on the US probe 12, or a range camera. Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; Fig. 1. Optical tracking as disclosed by Kruecker on p. 8, l. 19-25 requires both transmitting and receiving reflected or scattered optical signals to enable optical tracking functionality);
determining a shape of the one or more core fibers (“Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, … of an optical fiber.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; Fig. 1);
acquiring the plurality of ultrasound images (“The live ultrasound images of the time series are preferably acquired at a sufficiently fast rate (i.e. "frame rate" in analogy to a video display)” p. 9, l. 25 – 34; “when acquiring the corresponding US image.” p. 11, l. 1-11);
determining ultrasound probe movement based on the shape of the one or more core fibers (“Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, … of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25) in combination with tracking the one or more anatomical targets (“Another advantage resides in providing live US imaging guidance for an image-guided surgical procedure with improved accuracy when the US probe is moved to different orientations to provide optimal viewing perspective for visualization of the surgical procedure.”; p. 4, l. 22-25. “The live ultrasound images of the time series are preferably acquired at a sufficiently fast rate (i.e. "frame rate" in analogy to a video display) so that the live imaging UI 40 provides the surgeon with a near-real time view of the biopsy needle or other interventional instrument penetrating the prostate or other surgical target… a contour of the prostate may be superimposed on the displayed live ultrasound image depicting the prostate” p. 9, l. 25 - p. 10, l. 6; “Each live ultrasound image is tagged with a corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for that live ultrasound image”; p. 10, l. 25-27; Fig. 1);
associating the ultrasound probe movement with the plurality of ultrasound images (“Each live ultrasound image is tagged with a corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for that live ultrasound image”; p. 10, l. 25-27. “Each US image is tagged with the corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image. The term "tag" connotes that the corresponding orientation measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image is associated with the US image in data storage so that the electronic processor 30 executing the instructions of the non-transitory storage medium 32 can retrieve the corresponding orientation and recognize it to be the orientation of the US probe 12 used when acquiring the corresponding US image.” p. 11, l. 1-11); and
generating the 3D ultrasound image from the plurality of ultrasound images (“the 3D-US image acquisition UI 48 may instruct the user to sweep the US probe 12 through a spatial distance to provide three-dimensional ultrasound echo data for generating the 3D-US image.", p. 10, l. 16-19).
While teaching the optical fiber (“Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; Fig. 1), Kruecker does not explicitly teach the ultrasound probe connector having an optical fiber including one or more core fibers.
However, in the medical imaging field of endeavor, Zalev discloses optoacoustic imaging system, which is analogous art. Zalev teaches the ultrasound probe connector (132) having optical fiber including one or more core fibers (“Turning to FIG. 1, and as described generally below under the heading Optoacoustic System and Method is a device 100, including a probe 102 connected via a light path 132” [0043]; “the light path 132 is split into two sections, and the two sections are brought together using an optical fiber connector in close proximity to the probe 102. The optical fiber connector may be physically located within the probe 102, or may span opening 404 (see FIG. 4), or be located outside the probe 102. In an embodiment, an optical fiber connector would mechanically couple and align the cores of the fibers making up the light path 132 so that light can pass from one section to the other without significant loss.” [0410]).
Therefore, based on Zalev’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kruecker to have the ultrasound probe connector having optical fiber including one or more core fibers, as taught by Zalev, in order to facilitate transmission of light from light sources to the probe (Zalev: [0043]).
Kruecker modified by Zalev does not teach identifying and tracking the one or more anatomical targets within the plurality of ultrasound images.
However, in the ultrasound image segmentation field of endeavor, Shiran discloses a method and system for providing interaction with a visual artificial intelligence ultrasound image segmentation module, which is analogous art. Shiran teaches identifying and tracking the one or more anatomical targets (210, 220, 230) within the plurality of ultrasound images (200) (“At step 412, the signal processor 132 of the ultrasound system 100 tracks the selected at least one target 210, 220, 230 by identifying the at least one selected target 210, 220, 230 in subsequent ultrasound images 200 acquired continuously.” [0051]).
Therefore, based on Shiran’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker and Zalev to have the step of identifying and tracking the one or more anatomical targets within the plurality of ultrasound images, as taught by Shiran, in order to facilitate non-invasive imaging organs and soft tissues in a human body (Shiran: [0002]).
Regarding claim 8, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker does not explicitly teach that the one or more anatomical targets include one or more of veins, arteries, bones, tendons, ligaments, or nerves.
However, in the medical imaging field of endeavor, Zalev discloses optoacoustic imaging system, which is analogous art. Zalev teaches that the one or more anatomical targets include one or more of veins, arteries, bones, tendons, ligaments, or nerves (“applying an alternate detection scheme (automatic or manual) to find locations of veins or arteries” [0376]; “presumptions of tissue composition may include using typical ranges or values for tissue properties such as arteries, veins,” [0381]).
Therefore, based on Zalev’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Kruecker to have the one or more anatomical targets that include one or more of veins, arteries, bones, tendons, ligaments, or nerves, as taught by Zalev, in order to facilitate non-invasive imaging organs and tissues in a human body.
Regarding claim 11, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein Kruecker teaches that generating the 3D ultrasound image includes using ultrasound images associated with the shape of the optical fiber taken in relation to the point of reference (“In other contemplated embodiments in which the US probe is visible, e.g. a transcutaneous US probe disposed external of the patient, the probe tracker 28 may utilize optical tracking using optical reflectors or the like mounted on the US probe 12, or a range camera. Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; “Each live ultrasound image is tagged with a corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for that live ultrasound image”; p. 10, l. 25-27. “Each US image is tagged with the corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image. The term "tag" connotes that the corresponding orientation measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image is associated with the US image in data storage so that the electronic processor 30 executing the instructions of the non-transitory storage medium 32 can retrieve the corresponding orientation and recognize it to be the orientation of the US probe 12 used when acquiring the corresponding US image.” p. 11, l. 1-11. Note that the ultrasound probe is a point of reference; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 12, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein Kruecker teaches that the point of reference is the ultrasound probe (“In other contemplated embodiments in which the US probe is visible, e.g. a transcutaneous US probe disposed external of the patient, the probe tracker 28 may utilize optical tracking using optical reflectors or the like mounted on the US probe 12, or a range camera. Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; Fig. 1), and that determining ultrasound probe movement includes using the shape of the one or more core fibers taken in relation to the ultrasound probe (“Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; Fig. 1. Note that one or more core fibers are required for fiber optic shape sensing).
Regarding claim 13, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein Kruecker teaches that associating the ultrasound probe movement with ultrasound images includes associating the plurality of ultrasound images with the shape of the one or more core fibers taken in relation to the ultrasound probe (“In other contemplated embodiments in which the US probe is visible, e.g. a transcutaneous US probe disposed external of the patient, the probe tracker 28 may utilize optical tracking using optical reflectors or the like mounted on the US probe 12, or a range camera. Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; “Each live ultrasound image is tagged with a corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for that live ultrasound image”; p. 10, l. 25-27. “Each US image is tagged with the corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image. The term "tag" connotes that the corresponding orientation measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image is associated with the US image in data storage so that the electronic processor 30 executing the instructions of the non-transitory storage medium 32 can retrieve the corresponding orientation and recognize it to be the orientation of the US probe 12 used when acquiring the corresponding US image.” p. 11, l. 1-11; Fig. 1. Note that one or more core fibers are required for fiber optic shape sensing).
Claims 2-3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Younge et al (US 8050523), hereinafter, Younge.
Regarding claim 2, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
While Kruecker teaches a plurality of sensors (“fiber Bragg gratings” p. 8, l. 19-25), Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the one or more core fibers include a plurality of sensors distributed along a longitudinal length of a corresponding core fiber and each sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to reflect a light signal of a different spectral width based on received incident light, and change a characteristic of the reflected light signal for use in determining a physical state of the optical fiber.
However, in the shape sensing systems field of endeavor, Younge discloses optical fiber shape sensing systems, which is analogous art. Younge teaches that the one or more core fibers (13) (“In general, the embodiments described in the entirety of this document are applicable for single core or multi-core fibers.” Col. 11, l. 47-54; Figs. 9-11, 12G, H; 13, 14A-B) include a plurality of sensors (35) (“fiber Bragg gratings” Col. 25, l. 18-67) distributed along a longitudinal length of a corresponding core fiber (”Bragg gratings (35) written or printed on the length of the fiber (12)” “to monitor elongation at each of the sensor lengths given the fact that such sensor lengths are positioned at different positions longitudinally (L1, L2, L3, L4) away from the proximal detector (15).” Col. 11, l. 35-39) and each sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to reflect a light signal of a different spectral width (“associated with each of the wavelength bands” Col. 18, l. 60-67) based on received incident light (“FIGS. 14A-14B illustrates an optical fiber sensing system with Bragg gratings.” Col. 4, l. 36-37. “Each pulse from the light source (52) results in M number of return pulses from the fiber gratings associated with each of the wavelength bands 1, 2, . . . , n with each of these return pulses corresponding to the A.sup.th (3002) through the M.sup.th (3006) sets.” Col. 18, l. 60-67), and change a characteristic of the reflected light signal for use in determining a physical state of the optical fiber (“compression, tension, twist, torsion” Col. 10, l. 33-45) (“FIG. 30B illustrates an optical system comprising a pulsed light source (52)…The pulses of light are propagated down the optical fiber (12) to the M sets of n fiber gratings” Col. 18, l. 42-67. “Reflected light from fiber Bragg gratings may be processed using waveform or wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) or optical frequency domain reflectometry (OFDR) technique... For example, FIG. 40A illustrates an optical fiber (12) with Bragg gratings (35) written or printed on the length of the fiber (12) with a distance (d) between each line of the fiber gratings (35) and a distance (x) between each gratings (35). As light is launched through the optical fiber (12) by a light source (52), e.g., a swept laser, etc., light at a certain wavelength (.lamda..sub.1) is reflected back corresponding to the distance (d) between the lines of the gratings (35). As the optical fiber (12) is exposed to tension or compression due to bend, etc., the distance (d) between the lines in one or more of the gratings are altered in response to the tensile or compression load, wherein the strain (.epsilon.) of the fiber (12) is quotient (d'-d)/d. (.epsilon.)=(d'-d)/d”, Col. 25, l. 18-67).
Therefore, based on Younge’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the one or more core fibers that include a plurality of sensors distributed along a longitudinal length of a corresponding core fiber and each sensor of the plurality of sensors is configured to reflect a light signal of a different spectral width based on received incident light, and change a characteristic of the reflected light signal for use in determining a physical state of the optical fiber, as taught by Younge, in order to facilitate optical shape sensing using optical frequency domain reflectometry or wavelength division multiplexing (Younge: Col. 25, l. 18-67).
Regarding claim 3, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev, Blumenkranz, and Shiran does not teach that the optical fiber is a single-core optical fiber and that an incident light is provided in pulses.
However, in the shape sensing systems field of endeavor, Younge discloses optical fiber shape sensing systems, which is analogous art. Younge teaches that the optical fiber is a single-core optical fiber (“In another embodiment of a single sensing fiber, depicted in FIG. 14A, various sensor lengths (L50, L60, L70, L80) may be configured to each have the same grating spacing, and a more narrow band source may be utilized” Col. 11, l. 27-30. “It should be noted that FIGS. 13, 14A and 14B show a single fiber…In general, the embodiments described in the entirety of this document are applicable for single core … fibers.” Col. 11, l. 46-54) and wherein an incident light is provided in pulses (“FIG. 30B illustrates an optical system comprising a pulsed light source (52). The pulsed light source may be configured to provide substantially short pulses of light that may be on the order of one nano second during or less. The pulses of light are propagated down the optical fiber (12) to the M sets of n fiber gratings” Col. 18, l. 42-67).
Therefore, based on Younge’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the optical fiber that is a single-core optical fiber and wherein an incident light is provided in pulses, as taught by Younge, in order to facilitate optical shape sensing using optical frequency domain reflectometry (Younge: Col. 11, l. 27-40).
Regarding claim 10, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein Kruecker teaches determining the shape of the one or more core fibers (“Fiber optic shape sensing and localization in which fiber Bragg gratings, Raleigh scattering or the like is used determine a shape, position or orientation of an optical fiber and from that data, a position or orientation of the ultrasound probe, may also be used.”; p. 8, l. 19-25; Fig. 1).
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not explicitly teach that determining the shape of the one or more core fibers includes using the transmitted and received optical signals.
However, in the shape sensing systems field of endeavor, Younge discloses optical fiber shape sensing systems, which is analogous art. Younge teaches that determining the shape of the one or more core fibers (13) (“In general, the embodiments described in the entirety of this document are applicable for single core or multi-core fibers.” Col. 11, l. 47-54; Figs. 9-11, 12G, H; 13, 14A-B) includes using the transmitted and received optical signals (”Bragg gratings (35) written or printed on the length of the fiber (12)” “to monitor elongation at each of the sensor lengths given the fact that such sensor lengths are positioned at different positions longitudinally (L1, L2, L3, L4) away from the proximal detector (15).” Col. 11, l. 35-39) (“FIGS. 14A-14B illustrates an optical fiber sensing system with Bragg gratings.” Col. 4, l. 36-37. “Each pulse from the light source (52) results in M number of return pulses from the fiber gratings associated with each of the wavelength bands 1, 2, . . . , n with each of these return pulses corresponding to the A.sup.th (3002) through the M.sup.th (3006) sets.” Col. 18, l. 60-67), and change a characteristic of the reflected light signal for use in determining a physical state of the optical fiber (“compression, tension, twist, torsion” Col. 10, l. 33-45) (“FIG. 30B illustrates an optical system comprising a pulsed light source (52)…The pulses of light are propagated down the optical fiber (12) to the M sets of n fiber gratings” Col. 18, l. 42-67. “Reflected light from fiber Bragg gratings may be processed using waveform or wavelength division multiplexing (WDM) or optical frequency domain reflectometry (OFDR) technique... For example, FIG. 40A illustrates an optical fiber (12) with Bragg gratings (35) written or printed on the length of the fiber (12) with a distance (d) between each line of the fiber gratings (35) and a distance (x) between each gratings (35). As light is launched through the optical fiber (12) by a light source (52), e.g., a swept laser, etc., light at a certain wavelength (.lamda..sub.1) is reflected back corresponding to the distance (d) between the lines of the gratings (35). As the optical fiber (12) is exposed to tension or compression due to bend, etc., the distance (d) between the lines in one or more of the gratings are altered in response to the tensile or compression load, wherein the strain (.epsilon.) of the fiber (12) is quotient (d'-d)/d. (.epsilon.)=(d'-d)/d”, Col. 25, l. 18-67).
Therefore, based on Younge’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have determining the shape of the one or more core fibers that includes using the transmitted and received optical signals, as taught by Younge, in order to facilitate optical shape sensing using optical frequency domain reflectometry or wavelength division multiplexing (Younge: Col. 25, l. 18-67).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Younge et al (US 8050523), hereinafter, Younge, and Desjardins (WO 2014174305), hereinafter, Desjardins.
Regarding claim 4, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev, Blumenkranz, and Shiran does not teach that (1) the optical fiber is a multi-core optical fiber including a plurality of core fibers, and (2) that an incident light propagates along a first core fiber and a reflect light signal propagates along a second core fiber.
However, regarding feature (1), in the shape sensing systems field of endeavor, Younge discloses optical fiber shape sensing systems, which is analogous art. Younge teaches that the optical fiber is a multi-core optical fiber (13) including a plurality of core fibers (“multi-core fibers areshown in 12G and 12H as element (13). In particular, multicore fibers are applicable to embodiments illustrated in FIGS. 9, 10, and 11 for measuring bend as described in the above paragraphs.” Col. 11, l. 48-52. “In general, the embodiments described in the entirety of this document are applicable for … multi-core fibers.” Col. 11, l. 46-54).
Therefore, based on Younge’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the optical fiber that is a multi-core optical fiber including a plurality of core fibers, as taught by Younge, in order to facilitate optical shape sensing using optical frequency domain reflectometry (Younge: Col. 11, l. 27-40).
Regarding feature (2), Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Younge does not teach that an incident light propagates along a first core fiber and a reflect light signal propagates along a second core fiber.
However, in the optical sensing field of endeavor, Desjardins discloses a method and apparatus for determining the location of a medical instrument with respect to ultrasound imaging, and a medical instrument to facilitate such determination, which is analogous art. Desjardins teaches that an incident light propagates along a first core fiber (128) and a reflected light signal propagates along a second core fiber (928) (“light having the second wavelength range may be provided into tissue through the optical fibre 128, including the dichroic mirror, and may then be scattered. A portion of this scattered light may be received by the additional fiber(s) 928 and/ or by the double clad fiber itself to obtain a measurement of reflectance.”; p. 32, l. 29-32; Fig. 20D).
Therefore, based on Desjardins’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, Shiran, and Younge to have an incident light that propagates along a first core fiber and a reflect light signal propagates along a second core fiber, as taught by Desjardins, in order to facilitate optical sensing using reflectance measurements in multiple core fibers (Desjardins: [0056]).
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Blumenkranz et al (US 20160101263), hereinafter Blumenkranz.
Regarding claim 5, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the ultrasound probe connector includes a braided tubing encapsulating the optical fiber, the braided tubing configured to provide a mechanical integrity to the optical fiber.
However, in the shape sensing systems field of endeavor, Blumenkranz discloses systems and methods for reducing measurement error using optical fiber shape sensors, which is analogous art. Blumenkranz teaches a braided tubing (420) encapsulating the optical fiber (405 a-c), the braided tubing configured to provide a mechanical integrity to the optical fiber (“as illustrated in FIGS. 6A and 6B, the optical fiber shape sensor may be … covered by a tube or tubular jacket...The optical fiber shape sensor 400 comprises three cores 405a-c surrounded by a cladding 410, a buffer 415, and a jacket 420… the jacket 420 may be formed of …braided tubing" [0060]. Claim 10. “The apparatus of claim 8, wherein the optical fiber comprises a radiopaque jacket surrounding the buffer, the radiopaque jacket comprising at least one of stainless steel tubing, braided tubing”.).
Therefore, based on Blumenkranz’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have a braided tubing encapsulating the optical fiber, the braided tubing configured to provide a mechanical integrity to the optical fiber, as taught by Blumenkranz, in order to facilitate optical shape sensing (Blumenkranz: [0060]). In the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, Shiran, and Blumenkranz, the ultrasound probe connector includes a braided tubing encapsulating the optical fiber.
Regarding claim 6, Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Blumenkranz, teaches the system according to claim 5.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the optical fiber is centrally located within the braided tubing.
However, in the shape sensing systems field of endeavor, Blumenkranz discloses systems and methods for reducing measurement error using optical fiber shape sensors, which is analogous art. Blumenkranz teaches that the optical fiber is centrally located within the braided tubing (seen in Fig. 6B) (“as illustrated in FIGS. 6A and 6B, the optical fiber shape sensor may be … covered by a tube or tubular jacket...The optical fiber shape sensor 400 comprises three cores 405a-c surrounded by … a jacket 420… the jacket 420 may be formed of …braided tubing" [0060].).
Therefore, based on Blumenkranz’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the optical fiber that is centrally located within the braided tubing, as taught by Blumenkranz, in order to facilitate optical shape sensing (Blumenkranz: [0060]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Blumenkranz as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Padilla et al (US20180272108), hereinafter, Padilla.
Regarding claim 7, Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Blumenkranz teaches the system according to claim 5.
Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Blumenkranz does not teach that the braided tubing includes a mesh construction having a spacing between intersecting conductive elements of the braided tubing that is selected based on the degree of rigidity desired for the ultrasound probe connector.
However, in the surgical instruments field of endeavor, Padilla discloses a catheter with improved loop contraction and greater contraction displacement, which is analogous art. Padilla teaches that the braided tubing includes a mesh construction having a spacing (that of the “imbedded braided mesh” [0052]) between intersecting conductive elements of the braided tubing (“an imbedded braided mesh of stainless steel” [0052]) that is selected based on the degree of rigidity desired (“In the depicted embodiment of FIG. 1 and FIG. 3, the catheter body 12 comprises an elongated tubular construction having a single, axial or central lumen 18. The catheter body 12 is flexible, i.e., bendable, but substantially non-compressible along its length. The catheter body 12 can be of any suitable construction and made of any suitable material. In some embodiments, the construction comprises an outer wall 20 made of polyurethane or PEBAX. The outer wall 20 comprises an imbedded braided mesh of stainless steel or the like, as is generally known in the art, to increase torsional stiffness of the catheter body 12” [0052]. In this case, it is desired to increase torsional stiffness, and therefore, mesh parameters including its spacing are selected to increase the degree of rigidity).
Therefore, based on Padilla’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, Shiran, and Blumenkranz to have the braided tubing that includes a mesh construction having a spacing between intersecting conductive elements of the braided tubing that is selected based on the degree of rigidity desired, as taught by Padilla, in order to increase torsional stiffness (Padilla: [0052]). In the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, Shiran, Blumenkranz, and Padilla, the braided tubing is selected based on the degree of rigidity desired for the ultrasound probe connector.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Brister et al (US 20160029998), hereinafter, Brister.
Regarding claim 9, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein Kruecker teaches that the ultrasound probe further includes one or more electromagnetic sensors configured to measure a strength of a magnetic field generated by a magnet, the strength of the magnetic field related to a position of the ultrasound probe with respect to the magnet (“one or more EM sensors (not shown) are suitably mounted on or in the US probe 12 to enable tracking its position and orientation”; p. 8, l. 11-16), and the operations further include:
receiving magnetic strength values from the one or more electromagnetic sensors (“With continuing reference to FIGURE 1, the interventional imaging device further includes a probe tracker 28 that is operative to track orientation of the US probe. The probe tracker 28 may, for example, comprise an electromagnetic (EM) tracker such as the Aurora.sup.? EM tracking system available from Northern Digital Inc. (NDI, Ontario, Canada). An EM tracker employs EM sensors on tracked components, e.g. one or more EM sensors (not shown) are suitably mounted on or in the US probe 12 to enable tracking its position and orientation” p. 8, l. 11-16); and
associating each of the magnetic strength values with the ultrasound images (“Each US image is tagged with the corresponding orientation of the US probe 12 measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image. The term "tag" connotes that the corresponding orientation measured by the probe tracker 28 for the US image is associated with the US image in data storage so that the electronic processor 30 executing the instructions of the non-transitory storage medium 32 can retrieve the corresponding orientation and recognize it to be the orientation of the US probe 12 used when acquiring the corresponding US image.” p. 11, l. 1-11; Fig. 1).
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that one or more electromagnetic sensors configured to measure a strength of a magnetic field generated by a magnet attached to a patient.
However, in the surgical instruments field of endeavor, Brister discloses a catheter with improved loop contraction and greater contraction displacement, which is analogous art. Brister teaches that one or more electromagnetic sensors (108-114) configured to measure a strength of a magnetic field generated by a magnet (120) attached to a patient (“each of the magnetic sensors 108-114 comprise three independent magnetic sensing elements orthogonally arranged to provide three-dimensional measurement in the x, y, and z directions. The sensing elements of the magnetic sensors 108-114 are aligned with respect to a common origin such that each magnetic sensor senses the static magnetic field in the same x, y, and z directions. This permits the detection of magnetic field strength in a three-dimensional space by each of the magnetic sensors 108-114. The arrangement of the magnetic sensors 108-114 permits the detection of a magnet in a three-dimensional space within the patient. That is, in addition to locating the magnet within the patient, the detector system 100 provides depth information.” [0715]. “The configuration of the magnetic sensors 108-114 can be readily changed for specialized application. For example, a plurality of magnetic sensors may be configured in a spherical arrangement around a patient's waist to detect the location of the magnet 120 in the stomach.” [0716]. “In addition to displaying the magnet 120 as a three-dimensional graphic image, the system 100 can display the magnet from any perspective. For example, FIG. 17B illustrates the location of the magnet as viewed from the top surface of the patient, thus illustrating the location of the magnet in the X-Y plane.” [0770]).
Therefore, based on Brister’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have one or more electromagnetic sensors configured to measure a strength of a magnetic field generated by a magnet attached to a patient, as taught by Brister, in order to facilitate tracking the patient’s position.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of In 'T Groen et al (US 20220054108), hereinafter, In ‘T Groen.
Regarding claim 14, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the point of reference is one or more anatomical targets, and that the performance of operations further includes determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the one or more anatomical targets.
However, in the ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, In ‘T Groen discloses ultrasound transducer unit with friction guiding function, which is analogous art. In ‘T Groen teaches that the point of reference is one or more anatomical targets (“target… point of interest” [0152]), wherein the performance of operations further includes determining ultrasound probe (12) movement (“the current detected motion” [0152]) in relation to the one or more anatomical targets (“The target location detector uses knowledge of the target location, and of the current detected motion of the transducer unit 12 relative to the target location to determine an instantaneous target movement direction for the probe.” [0152]).
Therefore, based on In ‘T Groen’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the point of reference that is one or more anatomical targets, and that the performance of operations further includes determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the one or more anatomical targets, as taught by In ‘T Groen, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging of the one or more anatomical targets.
Claim 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Donhowe et al (US 20140188440), hereinafter, Donhowe.
Regarding claim 15, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the point of reference is the elongate medical device, and that the performance of operations further includes determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the elongate medical device.
However, in the medical systems field of endeavor, Donhowe discloses systems and methods for interventional procedure planning, which is analogous art. Donhowe teaches that the point of reference is the elongate medical device (“the catheter” [0062]), and wherein the performance of operations further includes determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the elongate medical device (“At 504, an imaging probe (e.g., an ultrasound probe) is inserted through the catheter and the movement of the imaging probe relative to a portion of the catheter (e.g., the catheter tip) is tracked.” [0062]; Figs. 6 and 9).
Therefore, based on Donhowe’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the point of reference that is the elongate medical device, and the performance of operations that further includes determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the elongate medical device, as taught by Donhowe, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging for interventional procedures.
Regarding claim 16, Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Donhowe teaches the system according to claim 15.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the elongate medical device is selected from the group consisting of a catheter, a stylet, a needle and a guidewire.
However, in the medical systems field of endeavor, Donhowe discloses systems and methods for interventional procedure planning, which is analogous art. Donhowe teaches that the elongate medical device is selected from the group consisting of a catheter, a stylet, a needle and a guidewire (“the catheter” [0062]).
Therefore, based on Donhowe’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the elongate medical device that is selected from the group consisting of a catheter, a stylet, a needle and a guidewire, as taught by Donhowe, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging for interventional procedures.
Claim 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Mine et al (US 20170252002), hereinafter, Mine.
Regarding claim 17, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the ultrasound probe includes one or more magnetic sensors configured to detect a magnetic field, wherein the point of reference is a reference magnet configured to generate a magnetic field over the target area.
However, in the ultrasonic diagnostic systems field of endeavor, Mine discloses ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus and ultrasonic diagnosis support apparatus, which is analogous art. Mine teaches that the ultrasound probe (120) includes one or more magnetic sensors (121) configured to detect a magnetic field (“The magnetic sensor 121 installed on the ultrasonic probe 120 provides information on a position and rotation of the ultrasonic probe 120 which is more accurate than positional information of the ultrasonic probe 120 obtained by the camera 130. As a result, the magnetic sensor 121 can enhance accuracy in positional control of the ultrasonic probe 120 performed by the robot arm 110.” [0051]), wherein the point of reference is a reference magnet (150) configured to generate a magnetic field over the target area (“FIG. 4 is a block diagram illustrating general configuration of the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1 according to the third modification of the present embodiment. The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1 of the third modification further includes a position sensor configured to use a magnetic field... In the configuration shown in FIG. 4, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1 is further provided with position sensors such as a magnetic transmitter 150, a magnetic sensor 121, and a magnetic sensor 190.” [0049]. “The magnetic transmitter 150 generates a magnetic field space in a region including the ultrasonic probe 120 and the object P. The magnetic coordinate system whose origin is the magnetic transmitter 150 and the robot coordinate system can be associated with each other based on the origin and the three axes of each of those two coordinate systems.” [0050]).
Therefore, based on Mine’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to have the ultrasound probe that includes one or more magnetic sensors configured to detect a magnetic field, wherein the point of reference is a reference magnet configured to generate a magnetic field over the target area, as taught by Mine, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging of the targets by improving the accuracy of the ultrasound probe positioning.
Regarding claim 18, Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Mine teaches the system according to claim 17.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the reference magnet is selected from a group consisting of a passive magnet, an electromagnet, and a magnetized metal.
However, in the ultrasonic diagnostic systems field of endeavor, Mine discloses ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus and ultrasonic diagnosis support apparatus, which is analogous art. Mine teaches that the reference magnet (150) is selected from a group consisting of a passive magnet, an electromagnet, and a magnetized metal (“The magnetic transmitter 150 generates a magnetic field space in a region including the ultrasonic probe 120 and the object P. The magnetic coordinate system whose origin is the magnetic transmitter 150 and the robot coordinate system can be associated with each other based on the origin and the three axes of each of those two coordinate systems.” [0050]; Fig. 4).
Therefore, based on Mine’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to employ the reference magnet that is selected from a group consisting of a passive magnet, an electromagnet, and a magnetized metal, as taught by Mine, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging of the targets by improving the accuracy of the ultrasound probe positioning. It would have been obvious to select the reference magnet from the group as claimed. In particular, an electromagnet could be selected for its strength in order to increase the range, resolution, and sensitivity.
Regarding claim 19, Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Mine teaches the system according to claim 17.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the performance of operations further includes detecting measured magnetic field strength values and determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the reference magnet.
However, in the ultrasonic diagnostic systems field of endeavor, Mine discloses ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus and ultrasonic diagnosis support apparatus, which is analogous art. Mine teaches that the performance of operations further includes detecting measured magnetic field strength values and determining ultrasound probe movement (“a position and rotation” [0051]) in relation to the reference magnet (“The magnetic transmitter 150 generates a magnetic field space in a region including the ultrasonic probe 120 and the object P. The magnetic coordinate system whose origin is the magnetic transmitter 150 and the robot coordinate system can be associated with each other based on the origin and the three axes of each of those two coordinate systems.” [0050]; “The magnetic sensor 121 installed on the ultrasonic probe 120 provides information on a position and rotation of the ultrasonic probe 120 which is more accurate than positional information of the ultrasonic probe 120 obtained by the camera 130. As a result, the magnetic sensor 121 can enhance accuracy in positional control of the ultrasonic probe 120 performed by the robot arm 110.” [0051]; Fig. 4).
Therefore, based on Mine’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to employ operations that further include detecting measured magnetic field strength values and determining ultrasound probe movement in relation to the reference magnet, as taught by Mine, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging of the targets by improving the accuracy of the ultrasound probe positioning. It would have been obvious to select the reference magnet from the group as claimed. In particular, an electromagnet could be selected for its strength in order to increase the range, resolution, and sensitivity.
Claim 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Poland (US 20180220993), hereinafter Poland.
Regarding claim 20, Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran teaches the system according to claim 1.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that the ultrasound probe includes one or more accelerometers configured to detect acceleration of the probe, wherein the point of reference is the one or more accelerometers.
However, in the ultrasonic diagnostic systems field of endeavor, Poland discloses an ultrasound system with processor dongle, which is analogous art. Poland teaches that the ultrasound probe includes one or more accelerometers (14) configured to detect acceleration of the probe, wherein the point of reference is the one or more accelerometers (“Inside the probe in this embodiment is a 3-axis or 6-axis motion sensor 14 such as an accelerometer…In the embodiment of FIG. 6a the accelerometer is used to sense probe motions for system control changes. The signals produced by the accelerometer are processed to produce indications of probe motion (acceleration, velocity, direction of motion, probe orientation) by a microcontroller in the wireless probe or by the acquisition and signal conditioning FPGA described above.” [0034]; Fig. 6a).
Therefore, based on Poland’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to employ the ultrasound probe that includes one or more accelerometers configured to detect acceleration of the probe, wherein the point of reference is the one or more accelerometers, as taught by Poland, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging of the targets by improving the accuracy of the ultrasound probe positioning.
Regarding claim 21, Kruecker modified by Zalev, Shiran, and Poland teaches the system according to claim 20.
Kruecker modified by Zalev and Shiran does not teach that determining ultrasound probe movement includes using measured probe acceleration values detected by the one or more accelerometers.
However, in the ultrasonic diagnostic systems field of endeavor, Poland discloses an ultrasound system with processor dongle, which is analogous art. Poland teaches that determining ultrasound probe movement includes using measured probe acceleration values detected by the one or more accelerometers (“In the embodiment of FIG. 6a the accelerometer is used to sense probe motions for system control changes. The signals produced by the accelerometer are processed to produce indications of probe motion (acceleration, velocity, direction of motion, probe orientation) by a microcontroller in the wireless probe or by the acquisition and signal conditioning FPGA described above.” [0034]; Fig. 6a).
Therefore, based on Poland’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Kruecker, Zalev, and Shiran to employ the step of determining ultrasound probe movement that includes using measured probe acceleration values detected by the one or more accelerometers, as taught by Poland, in order to facilitate ultrasonic imaging of the targets by improving the accuracy of the ultrasound probe positioning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798