DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
1) Yamauchi teaches that the marker range indicate ends along a direction (claim 1).
2) Yamauchi teaches in Figure 3 that a puncture needle is used and that the visible markers of the probe may be used to guide the needle (claims 10 and 17).
3) Yamauchi teaches that the range markers face a radiation surface of the ultrasound wave in a radial direction because the direction of the waves emitted from the radiation surface are radial in nature (claims 11 and 12).
4) Yamauchi teaches in Figures 2 and 3 that the end portion of a radiation wave is designated as a line (claim 14).
5) Yamauchi teaches in Figures 2 and 3 that the markers are shown as a scale, that they are in an extending strip-shaped pattern, that there are end portions, and that the middle marker is ‘deviated’ in shape compared to the end markers (claim 13).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim(s) 9 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 9 and 16, the claim recites that at least one of the range markers is, visible from any direction in 360 degrees around the case. However, there does not appear to be support for this in terms of where the range markers are located on and along the ultrasound probe case.
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) 1-14, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yamauchi (JP 2010/119484 A, English translation, of record) in view of Solomon (US 2006/0058680, of record).
Regarding claims 1-8, Yamauchi discloses an ultrasound probe comprising an ultrasound transducer that radiates an ultrasound wave, a case that accommodates the ultrasound transducer ([0025]: “ultrasound probe”), wherein the case includes one or more range markers that are provided at positions visible from an outside and that indicate a radiation range of the ultrasound wave ([0026]…[0028]); wherein a radiation surface of the ultrasound wave is elongated in an axial direction of the case, and the one or more range markers include a range marker that is disposed close to the radiation surface of the ultrasound wave, wherein the one or more range markers include a pair of range markers that are disposed on both sides in the lateral direction, respectively with the radiation surface of the ultrasound wave interposed therebetween, wherein at least one of the one or more range markers also function as a direction marker that has a surface parallel or orthogonal to a radiation surface of the ultrasound wave and that indicates a radiation direction of the ultrasound wave (Figs. 2 and 3 show a downward pointing arrow symbol which indicates the direction of the ultrasound wave), wherein at least one of the one or more range markers is a strip-shaped pattern that extends in the same range in an axial direction as the radiation range of the ultrasound wave (Figs. 2 and 3 shows pairs of range markers on both sides of a central marker, extending in a ‘strip-shape’). Yamauchi does not explicitly disclose that the case is substantially cylindrical and that the markers are arranged circumferentially around the case, visible from a 360-degree view, including a scale and color markings. However, Solomon teaches a substantially cylindrical laparoscopic ultrasound imaging probe for guiding a medical tool to an anatomical object of interest (Figs. 4 and 5A-5D) that comprises visible markers used for alignment to ultrasound transducers ([0020]). The addition of a generic scale and color selection would have been obvious modifications to enhance the visualization and understanding of Yamauchi’s markers. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to combine the marker guide of Yamauchi to the cylindrical endoscopic device of Solomon, as to provide robust visual guidance to an in vivo ultrasound imaging device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p PST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights