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 .
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 25-44 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of copending Application No. 19/199,038 in view of Zwirn et al. (US 2006/0078182). Claim 25 recites a system for providing a point estimate of an ultrasound dose at a region of interest in a subject comprising: an ultrasound source (encompassed by ultrasound source in claim 1 of ‘038); an image processor module for processing images to identify different components of the region of interest (encompassed by image processor in claim 1 of ‘038); a database module comprising medium property values associated with a plurality of categories for components within the region of interest (encompassed by database in claim 1 of ‘038); the processor performt he tasks of: retrieving an image of the region of interest, wherein the region of interest comprises a target treatment area and a surrounding region of the target treatment area (encompassed by scanning an image in claim 1 of ‘038); processing the image to identify different components of the region of interest (encompassed by processing the image in claim 1 of ‘038); segmenting and categorizing the different components into predetermined media categories (encompassed by segmenting and categorizing in claim 1 of ‘038); retrieving a medium property value associated with each media category (encompassed by retrieving a standard medium property value in claim 1 of ‘038) comprising: estimating a category-specific ultrasound coupling bubble element correction to the medium property value resulting from the presence of at least one ultrasound coupling bubble element in at least one component (encompassed by estimating a category-specific ultrasound coupling bubble element correction in claim 1 of ‘038); and adjusting the medium property value of the at least one component to account for the respective category-specific ultrasound coupling bubble element correction (encompassed by adjusting the medium property value in claim 1 of ‘038); and attributing said medium property value to each respective component of the segmented region of interest (encompassed by attributing said medium property value in claim 1 of ’038); and delineating an ultrasound propagation path from the ultrasound source to the target treatment region (encompassed by delineating the propagation path in claim 1 of ‘038); compiling the medium property values for each component over the propagation path to calculate an ultrasound propagation correction factor unique to the ultrasound propagation path through the region of interest (encompassed by compiling the medium property values in claim 1 of ‘038); calculating the point estimate of the ultrasound dose at the region of interest based on the unique propagation correction factor (encompassed by using unique propagation correction factor in claim 1 of ‘038); and adjusting the ultrasound source according to the calculated point estimate of the ultrasound dose if outside of a predetermined ultrasound dose range (encompassed by reconfiguring an ultrasound source in claim 1 of ‘038). Application ‘038 does not claim the specifics of a computer processor and data storage. However, Zwirn et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor software instructions are executed by a computer ([0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Application ‘038 with a computer as taught by Zwirn et al. as it is well known for a computer system to perform the software instructions in ultrasound imaging ([0064]). Claim 26 is encompassed by claim 13 in ‘038. Claim 27 is encompassed by claim 14 in ‘038. Claim 28 is encompassed by claim 15 in ‘038. Claim 29 is encompassed by claim 16 of ‘038. Claim 30 is encompassed by claim 17 of ‘038. Claim 31 is encompassed by claim 2 of ‘038. Claim 32 is encompassed by claim 3 of ‘038. Claims 33-34 are encompassed by claims 1 and 4 of ‘038. Claim 35 is encompassed by claim 5 of ‘038. Claim 36 is encompassed by claim 6 of ‘038. Claim 37 is encompassed by claim 7 of ‘038. Claim 38 is encompassed by claim 8 of ‘038. Claim 39 is encompassed by claim 9 of ‘038. Claim 40 is encompassed by claim 10 of ‘038. Claim 41 is encompassed by claim 11 of ‘038. Claim 42 is encompassed by claim 12 of ‘038. Claim 43 is encompassed by claim 18 of ‘038. Claim 44 is encompassed by claim 19 of ‘038.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Healey et al. (US 2025/0272845) discloses the subject matter of dividing a region of interest of an image into a set of mini-segments (segmenting); calculating at least two representative intensity values (medium property value), respectively representing at least two types of substances (media category); applying attenuation corrections to each representative value of at least a subset of the set of mini-segments (propagations correction factor). Healey et al. does not teach delineating an ultrasound propagation path; compiling the medium property values for each component over the propagation path to calculate an ultrasound propagation correction factor unique to the ultrasound propagation path; calculating point estimate of the ultrasound dose; and adjusting the ultrasound source according to the calculated point estimate of the ultrasound dose.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797