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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Skliar (9212956).
Skliar discloses a transducer for sending and receiving an ultrasonic pulse (Col 8, lines 32-33); and a longitudinally elongate fiber in ultrasonic communication with the transducer and having a proximal end joined to the transducer (Col 8, lines 15-20) and configured to receive an ultrasonic pulse therefrom (Col 8, lines 45-56) and a distal end remote from the proximal end and configured to reflect ultrasonic pulses towards the transducer (Col 8, lines 61-63), the distal end being disposable in an extreme environment (Col 8, lines 13-14), the fiber being segmented by a plurality of longitudinally spaced apart echogenic features intermediate the proximal end and the distal end (Col 8, lines 23-25), each echogenic feature being configured to reflect a respective portion of the ultrasonic pulse back to the transducer (Col 8, lines 41-42) and circumscribing the fiber (Col 9, lines 40-41).
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.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skliar in view of Varela (4483630).
With respect to claim 2, Skliar teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach a pulser generator in ultrasonic communication with the transducer and a display configured to show results from processing waveforms received from the transducer.
Varela teaches a pulser generator in ultrasonic communication with the transducer (Col 3, lines 51-53) and a display configured to show results from processing waveforms received from the transducer (Col 7, lines 20-23). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Skliar with the pulse generator and display of Varela since such a modification would have allowed for better control of the acoustic pulse and better accessibility for a user operator.
With respect to claim 3, Skliar as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. It further teaches the echogenic features circumscribing the fiber comprises collars (Col 9, lines 40-41).
With respect to claim 4, Skliar as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. It further teaches from 5 to 10 collars (Fig 7).
With respect to claim 5, Skliar as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. It further teaches the distal end being disposed in an extreme environment (Col 8, lines 13-14), the proximal end and transducer being remote therefrom and not in the extreme environment (Col 8, lines 12-13). It teaches the distance between backscatterers is 2mm to about 2cm (Col 9, lines 1-3). Therefore, if the fiber has at minimum two backscatterers as required by Skliar at a distance between backscatterers, Skliar would teach the fiber has a length from the proximal end to the distal end of 0.01 meter to 30 meters.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skliar in view of Varela, and further in view of Sabraoui (2022/0146330).
Skliar as modified teaches the invention as discussed above. However, it does not teach the pulse generator emits a square wave.
Sabraoui teaches the pulse generator emits a square wave ([0061]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the present application to modify the system of Skliar with the square wave of Sabraoui since such a modification would have led to a cleaner and easily detectable signal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571 272 6970. 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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
