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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 2/24/2025. These drawings are accepted for examination.
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 1-8 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. Regarding claim 1, it is unclear if “in an incidence” is meant to include any and all possible directions that radiation can be ‘directed’ or otherwise reflected from a target. Additionally, at least partially is undefined as it could be any amount, thus creating a situation where so long as the ultrasound/radiation image devices have a singular pixel of different (geometric or anatomical) information, it appears the limitation would be met. Even an ultrasound or radiation devices’ intended use variation or tolerance would meet the limitation as written.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al (US 2018/0024253) in view of Fisher et al (US 2008/0292979).
Jacobs et al disclose and teach a medical image acquisition apparatus which captures a radiation image of a compressed breast utilizing a radiation image capture device (16) and an ultrasound image device (22), the radiation and ultrasound devices are fully capable of being configured to not fully overlap in at least one direction of incidence of radiation (either towards/away from the radiational imaging device/element, Fig 1, 0044, Fig 2, 0075-0077, X-ray pixel adjustments).
Additionally, Jacobs et al disclose and teach the transducer of the ultrasound device and the radiation acquisition element are arrangement on the same substrate, that the acquisition region of the imaging devices (ultrasonic and radiational) is generally the same region of interest, and the ultrasound device is an electrostatic capacitance type ultrasound device (0047-0053, 0009, Claims 1, 3, 12, 13).
Finally, Jacobs et al discloses and teaches the image generation with multiple modalities which is controlled by a console for control of both imaging processes (Claim 1, 3, 12, 13, 0009, 0047-0053) and disclose silicon (0033) substrates for the ultrasound/radiation combination imaging device (0047-0060, for a full listing of substrate structures, imaging arrays, and various segments for active elements).
Jacobs et al discloses what is listed above, but does not specify a silicon semiconductor device (though a substrate element is disclosed) nor the compression plating for breast imaging. Attention is hereby directed to the reference to Fisher et al (US 2008/0292979) in the same area of endeavor, which expressly teaches both compression members for combination imaging, as well as a silicon semiconductor device for capacitive ultrasound imaging (0055-0057, cMUT, 0057 capacitance). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized the teachings of Fisher et al (0054, abs), to allow for combination imaging for increased accuracy and diagnostic information during compression imaging of the breast (0001-0007, Fisher).
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jacobs et al (US 2018/0024253) in view of Fisher et al (US 2008/0292979) as applied to claim 1 and in further view of Rothberg et al (US 2015/0247921). While Jacobs discloses the wavelength and positioning of ultrasonic elements in (0050), but does not specify the ‘pitch’ calculated from the wavelength and bream steering, nor the “random arrangement density” of elements. Attention is hereby directed to Rothberg et al which teaches such an arrangement in (0281) as well as the utilization of random element arrangement at a specified density of elements (Fig 18a-d, 19, 0278-0281). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have utilized these teaches in order to facilitate an increase in resolution during transmissive imaging and combination imaging in an object under compression/interrogation (Abs, 0019, 0141-0142).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOEL M. LAMPRECHT whose telephone number is (571)272-3250. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 9:00-5:30.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571)270-1790. 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.
/JOEL LAMPRECHT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights