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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 4/23/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, the claim includes periods in lines 6 and 19 and therefore is not following proper formatting for a single claim. These periods should be removed.
Regarding claim 1, the claim includes duplicate recitation of “wherein” in lines 18 and 19. The duplicate word should be removed.
Regarding claim 5, there are duplicate commas in line 12. The duplicate punctuation should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the cable" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The term “high speed” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the scope of how fast a rotor side must rotate to be considered to be high speed and this renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Regarding claim 1, the claim includes references to figures 2 and 1 and it is not considered to be an exceptional circumstance in which there is no way to define the invention in words (see MPEP § 2173.05(s) Reference to Figures or Tables). This renders the scope of the limitations referenced in combination with the figures unclear and the claim rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 1, the frame rate set to f and the rotational speed set to 0.5*f form different expected units of measure (frames per second and revolutions per minute), and therefore this renders the scope of the limitation as unclear with no units provided for either variable. This renders the claim rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites the method step of “and rotating”, and it is unclear how the method steps are to be incorporated into the overall system claim of independent claim 1. This renders the scope of what or how the method steps are to be performed unclear and indefinite. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness and should be rewritten to incorporate the associated features into configurable features of structural elements of the overall system claim.
The term “high speed” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high speed” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to the scope of how fast a transducer must rotate to be considered to be high speed and this renders the claim unclear and indefinite.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the coupling fluid" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “and generates multiple two-dimensional ultrasound images rotating around the rotating shaft”. It is unclear how images are rotating around the rotating shaft. This limitation should be rewritten in proper grammatical format to clearly define what is rotating around the rotating shaft to generate the images. This renders the claim unclear and rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “the two-dimensional images formed at different rotation angles are rapidly three-dimensionally reconstructed, the reconstructed four-dimensional images are rendered and displayed,” and these limitations are considered to be method steps that are not properly incorporated into structural limitations of the ultrasound system. This renders what or how the steps are being performed unclear and the claim is rejected for indefiniteness.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the ultrasound beam" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “and calculating transmit and receive delays” in line 7. It is unclear as to what delays are being calculated and whether it refers to each voxel on an ultrasound beam or whether it is delays of some other element. It is therefore not clear “of what” the delays belong to and this renders the scope of the claim unclear and the claim rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “calculating the space angle” to reconstruct the two-dimensional images but it is unclear as to how a space angle calculation alone would reconstruct the images. This limitation must refer to the calculation as part of image reconstruction overall, rather than attempting to claim a space angle calculation as the singular step leading to image reconstruction. This renders the claim unclear and rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “performing three-dimensional reconstruction on all the two-dimensional images in a Cartesian coordinate system” and it is unclear how each two-dimensional image can be reconstructed into three-dimensional images. The claim does not clearly specify that the two-dimensional images are combined for a single reconstruction into a three-dimensional image. It is also unclear as to whether the two-dimensional images are from only a single rotation, or could include all images previously set forth by the device.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites the frame rate set to f and the rotational speed set to 0.5*f which form different expected units of measure, and therefore this renders the scope of the limitation as unclear with no units provided. This renders the claim rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “performing interpolation according to the space angle” but it is unclear as to what the interpolation is performed on and how it relates to the previously acquired images or signals from the ultrasound beam. This renders the claim unclear and rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites “performing rendering and real-time image display of the generated four-dimensional images” but no display is set forth in the ultrasound system for enabling a rendering and real-time display. It is therefore unclear how the claimed element would be performed by the system. This renders the claim unclear and rejected for indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 5, the claim recites method steps of “obtaining”, “calculating”, “after… performing”, “performing”, and “performing”, and it is unclear how the method steps are to be incorporated into the overall system claim of independent claim 1. This renders the scope of what or how the method steps are to be performed unclear and indefinite. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness and should be rewritten to incorporate the associated features into configurable features of structural elements of the overall system claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the transducer wire harness" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Examiner suggests setting forth “a transducer wire harness” as the initial recitation of the element to maintain continuity throughout the claims.
Regarding claim 7, the claim recites the method step of “the transducer rotating”, and it is unclear how the method steps are to be incorporated into the overall system claim of independent claim 1. This renders the scope of what or how the method steps are to be performed unclear and indefinite. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness and should be rewritten to incorporate the associated features into configurable features of structural elements of the overall system claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the transducer wire harness" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the method step of “wherein during surgery, a surgeon injects”, and it is unclear how the method steps are to be incorporated into the overall system claim of independent claim 1. This renders the scope of what or how the method steps are to be performed unclear and indefinite. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness and should be rewritten to incorporate the associated features into configurable features of structural elements of the overall system claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the one-way inlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the air" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 9, the claim recites the method step of “thereby deflecting the sheath by pulling”, and it is unclear how the method steps are to be incorporated into the overall system claim of independent claim 1. This renders the scope of what or how the method steps are to be performed unclear and indefinite. For these reasons, the claim is rejected for indefiniteness and should be rewritten to incorporate the associated features into configurable features of structural elements of the overall system claim.
Claims dependent upon rejected claims are also rejected for indefiniteness. Therefore, dependent claims 6 and 10 are also rejected.
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.
Claims 1, 3, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20150094595) hereinafter Havel ‘595, in view of Havel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140213907) hereinafter Havel ‘907, in further view of Wilson (U.S. Pat. No. 5611343) hereinafter Wilson.
Regarding claim 1, primary reference Havel ‘595 teaches:
A mechanical four-dimensional intracardiac ultrasound imaging system (including forward looking or side looking) (abstract; [0014]-[0015]; [0051]; [0110]), comprising:
an ultrasound system ([0014]-[0018], ultrasound imaging system; [0043]-[0044], ultrasound system; [0052]-[0059]; [0067]-[0080]; [0093]-[0097]),
a slip ring ([0069], slip ring connections; [0089], slip ring assembly; [0094]-[0097], slip ring assembly as in figure 14; [0102]-[0104], slip ring assembly),
a host end connector ([0102], one signal line can run from the control end of catheter 22 and through the slip ring assembly 90 which forms a host end connector; see also [0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16),
a catheter end connector ([0097], “A notch 246 allows passage of a conductor between the bottom surface of transducer 28 and the slip ring assembly 90”; see also [0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16),
a motor ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, motor 32),
a transducer ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, transducer 28),
a sheath ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, catheter 22 as a sheath as in [0065]) and
wherein the ultrasound system is connected to the host end connector through the slip ring ([0102], one signal line can run from the control end of catheter 22 and through the slip ring assembly 90 which forms a host end connector; see also [0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16), and the catheter end connector is connected to the transducer through the cable ([0097], “A notch 246 allows passage of a conductor between the bottom surface of transducer 28 and the slip ring assembly 90”; see also [0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16).
wherein the motor is configured to drive a rotor side of the slip ring to rotate uniformly and unidirectionally at a high speed ([0092]-[0104] and figures 14-16, motor 32 drives the slip ring rotor side for movement of the slip ring uniformly and thus the transducer 28 at a uniform rotation for imaging);
wherein the slip ring comprises a rotor side and a stator side, the stator side being directly connected with the host end connector ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, slip ring 91 includes a rotor side connected to the transducer 28 and a stator side connected both to the motor 32 and the conductor for signal line to the processing system [0102]), the rotor side being connected with a catheter, and the motor driving the rotor side of the slip ring to rotate, thereby driving a rotor side connector ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, slip ring 91 includes a rotor side connected to the transducer 28 and a stator side connected both to the motor 32 and the conductor for the transducer and slip ring assembly 90 as in [0097] forming the rotor side connector), the transducer to rotate around the center of the transducer in the sheath ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, transducer 28 is configured to rotate about including full 360 degree imaging as in [0106]);
wherein the ultrasound transducer is one-dimensional phase array, and is configured to transmit and receive ultrasound beams in different directions ([0056], 1D array of elements form a one dimensional phase array; [0101]-[0102], linear array transducer and configured to image in different directions; [0106]; see also [0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16)
wherein the ultrasound system is configured to generate two-dimensional images rotating around a central axis at a high speed according to focusing ultrasonic beams or plane waves in different directions ([0072], 2D images based upon rotation configured for 2D imaging rather than only 3D imaging rotation; [0093]-[0104]), and wherein.
wherein the ultrasound transducer is capable of forward-looking (as shown in FIG. 2) or side-looking (as shown in FIG. 1) imaging, for side-looking imaging, the ultrasound transducer generates a three-dimensional images for a rotation of 360°, for forward-looking imaging, the ultrasound transducer generates a three-dimensional image for a rotation of 180°, ([0072], forward and/or lateral (side-looing) imaging based upon positioning of the transducer forms a “capable” transducer; [0101], orientations of the transducer provides for forward facing or other directional (side-facing) orientations for acquiring desired target region imaging signals; [0106] teaching to full 360 degree rotation about the axis; [0113]; see also [0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16; Partial rotation at ranges less than 360 encompasses the scope of a 180 degree half rotation).
Primary reference Havel ‘595 is not relied upon to teach:
a torque coil,
wherein the torque coil is configured to drive the ultrasound transducer to rotate within the sheath
However, the analogous art of Havel ‘907 of a 3D catheter based ultrasound imaging assembly (abstract) teaches:
a torque coil ([0038]-[0045], figure 1, coil 80 forms a torque coil),
wherein the torque coil is configured to drive the ultrasound transducer to rotate within the sheath ([0038]-[0045], figure 1, coil 80 forms a torque coil configured to drive and rotate the ultrasound transducer 28 for precise placement and imaging);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595 to incorporate the torque coil for ultrasound transducer rotational control as taught by Havel ‘907 because it provides additional magnetic based torque control of an ultrasound transducer leading to more precise positioning and angular rotation of a transducer during an imaging procedure (Havel ‘907, [0041]). This leads to higher quality signal acquisition and improved image outputs.
Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
as a result, when the volumetric frame rate of ultrasonic four-dimensional imaging is set to f, the rotational speed of the motor and the slip ring is 0.5*f
However, the analogous art of Wilson of a ultrasound imaging system with a rotatable ultrasound transducer (abstract) teaches:
as a result, when the volumetric frame rate of ultrasonic four-dimensional imaging is set to f, the rotational speed of the motor and the slip ring is 0.5*f (col 2, lines 30-48, at 10 revolutions per second and a spacing of 180 degrees instead of 120 degrees, the associated frame rate would be 20 frames per second and therefore double the rotational speed of 10 revolutions per second)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595 and Havel ‘907 to incorporate the frame rate linked to the rotational speed at a 180 degree imaging increment as taught by Wilson because the rotating transducer speed directly impacts when and how often a transducer will cover a particular imaging angle of interest (Wilson, col 2, lines 30-48). By keeping the two rates in proper sync, maximum signal quality can be achieved for any particular combination of imaged angle and rotational speed of the transducer.
Regarding claim 3, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further teaches:
wherein the transducer is a one-dimensional phase array transducer and rotates unidirectionally and uniformly at a high speed around the rotation center ([0056], 1D array of elements form a one dimensional phase array; [0072], rotation of the transducer; [0101]-[0102], linear array transducer and configured to image in different directions; [0106]; see also [0092]-[0106] and figures 14-16, rotation by motor for 3D imaging across in a unidirectional, uniform manner for consistent imaging across rotation axis A).
Regarding claim 6, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further teaches:
wherein when the transducer unidirectionally and uniformly rotates at a high speed ([0056], 1D array of elements form a one dimensional phase array; [0072], rotation of the transducer; [0101]-[0102], linear array transducer and configured to image in different directions; [0106]; see also [0092]-[0106] and figures 14-16, rotation by motor for 3D imaging across in a unidirectional, uniform manner for consistent imaging across rotation axis A),
the transducer transmits a plurality of focused ultrasound beams for flat scanning or non-focused plane waves for flat scanning, and receives the reflected echo signals ([0057], focused ultrasound beams; [0101], “transducer 28 is configured as a single element transducer or a linear array transducer with a surface that is substantially flat.” Which forms flat scanning of focused ultrasound beams).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havel ‘595, in view of Havel ‘907, in further view of Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Havel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20170042505) hereinafter Havel ‘505.
Regarding claim 2, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further teaches:
wherein the slip ring comprises a stator side and a rotor side, the rotor side being connected with the rotating motor and rotating, the stator side being connected to the ultrasound system and static ([0093]-[0104] and figures 14-16, slip ring 91 includes a rotor side connected to the transducer 28 and a stator side connected both to the motor 32 and the conductor for signal line to the processing system [0102]),
Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
and the rotor side and the stator side moving relatively and being electrically connected via electric brush
However, the analogous art of Havel ‘505 of a 3D catheter based ultrasound imaging assembly (abstract) teaches:
and the rotor side and the stator side moving relatively and being electrically connected via electric brush ([0039], slip ring and brush assembly 47,48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson to incorporate the brush assembly as taught by Havel ‘505 because it provides reliable electrical connection between moving elements (Havel ‘505, [0028]). This leads to higher quality rotating transducer signals and improved image output.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havel ‘595, in view of Havel ‘907, in further view of Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dausch et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20140257105) hereinafter Dausch, in further view of Chi (U.S. Pub. No. 20210307759) hereinafter Chi.
Regarding claim 4, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
wherein the catheter has a water inlet with a one-way valve in a proximal end, and an air outlet in a distal end, the coupling fluid being capable of being injected from the water inlet in the proximal end of the catheter, and air being exhausted through the air outlet
However, the analogous art of Dausch of a catheter assembly for use with imaging systems (abstract) teaches:
wherein the catheter has a water inlet with a one-way valve in a proximal end, and an air outlet in a distal end, the coupling fluid being capable of being injected from the water inlet in the proximal end of the catheter, and air being exhausted through the air outlet ([0034], fluid control valve in one direction with a air valve in the distal end opening for air to travel through).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson to incorporate the one way valve with air outlet as taught by Dausch because it works automatically to allow bubbles or air in the sealable space to flow out of the catheter capsule assembly through the check valve and out of the capsule through the opening in the distal end of the capsule (Dausch, [0034]). This provides for a proper fluid flow during use, leading to increased accuracy and reduced patient side effects.
Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
and an air outlet made of silica gel in a distal end
However, the analogous art of Chi of a catheter device with fluid transfer ports (abstract) teaches:
and an outer conduit with ports made of silica gel in a distal end ([0012], silica gel coated conduit; In the combined invention, this forms an air outlet made of, in part, silica gel as it is within an outer conduit structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, Wilson, and Dausch to incorporate the silica gel coated conduit as taught by Chi because it provides a hydrophobic coating and enables enhanced physical properties relative to the target regions of interest during an interventional procedure (Chi, [0012]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havel ‘595, in view of Havel ‘907, in further view of Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Schaer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20220401070) hereinafter Schaer.
Regarding claim 7, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further teaches:
the transducer rotating inside the sheath ([0092]-[0104] and figures 14-16, motor 32 drives the slip ring rotor side for movement of the slip ring uniformly and thus the transducer 28 at a uniform rotation for imaging),
Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
wherein the transducer is connected with the catheter end connector through a wire harness, the transducer wire harness being a coaxial cable or a flexible printed circuit board,
and the sheath being deflectable and static
However, the analogous art of Schaer of an interventional catheter device (abstract) teaches:
wherein the transducer is connected with the catheter end connector through a wire harness, the transducer wire harness being a coaxial cable or a flexible printed circuit board ([0102], PCB with flexible cable bundle connected to transducer),
and the sheath being deflectable and static ([0076]-[0078], figures 3Ai-iii, sheath 1208 is shown as deflectable but would also be static relative to the transducer in the combined prior art invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson to incorporate the PCB flexible connection through a deflectable sheath as taught by Schaer because it provides consistent electrical communication throughout movement of the device, leading to higher output signal quality (Schaer, [0102]).
Regarding claim 8, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, Wilson, and Schaer teach all of the limitations of claim 7. The combined prior art references further teach:
wherein the transducer wire harness, the transducer and the torque coil are located in the sheath (Havel ‘595: [0092]-[0107], figures 14-16, teach to wire harness (connections) transducer within the sheath (catheter); Havel ‘907: [0038]-[0045], figure 1, coil 80 forms a torque coil within the sheath (catheter)), and
wherein during surgery, a surgeon injects a coupling fluid into the one-way inlet near the proximal end of the catheter and the air is exhausted from the catheter to form acoustic coupling between the transducer and the sheath (Havel ‘595: [0051]; [0070]-[0071]; [0098]-[0103]-[0105]).
Regarding claim 9, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, Wilson, and Schaer teach all of the limitations of claim 8. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
wherein the sheath is deflectable with gradually changing hardness, the catheter having a relatively soft distal end and a relatively hard proximal end, and pull wires being integrated in a sheath wall of the sheath, thereby deflecting the sheath by pulling the pull wires through operating the handle
However, the analogous art of Schaer of an interventional catheter device (abstract) teaches:
wherein the sheath is deflectable with gradually changing hardness, the catheter having a relatively soft distal end and a relatively hard proximal end, and pull wires being integrated in a sheath wall of the sheath, thereby deflecting the sheath by pulling the pull wires through operating the handle ([0076]-[0081]; see [0081], “The stiffness of the distal shaft of tool 1212 is such that it does not substantially deform outer sheath 1208 while inside, but upon exiting is allowed to bend.” And actuation of pull wires).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, Wilson, and Schaer to incorporate the deflectable and relatively soft distal end of the sheath steerable by pull wires as taught by Schaer because it provides more accurate placement of the distal end of the device at target regions of interest within the patient (Schaer, [0076]-[0081]). This provides robust support of the system at the proximal end, while enabling fine adjustment of the distal position for imaging particular areas of interest.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Havel ‘595, in view of Havel ‘907, in further view of Wilson as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Itoh et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 20160095577) hereinafter Itoh.
Regarding claim 10, the combined references of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson teach all of the limitations of claim 1. Primary reference Havel ‘595 further fails to teach:
wherein the motor and the slip ring are integrated in a driver, the driver being capable of being put on a hospital bed or located on an adjustable support arm, so that the distance from the catheter to the patient can be adjusted by adjusting the position of the driver
However, the analogous art of Itoh of an imaging apparatus for internal ultrasound imaging of a patient (abstract) teaches:
wherein the motor and the slip ring are integrated in a driver, the driver being capable of being put on a hospital bed or located on an adjustable support arm, so that the distance from the catheter to the patient can be adjusted by adjusting the position of the driver ([0056], scanner and pullback unit 102 as shown in figure 1 forms a driver in which slip ring 451 and motor 405 are integrated. This device is capable of positioning on any object such as a hospital bed for adjustment of distance to patient).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ultrasound imaging system of Havel ‘595, Havel ‘907, and Wilson to incorporate the driver unit with slip ring and motor integration as taught by Itoh because it enables more ergonomic placement relative to a patient and an overall imaging apparatus throughout a procedure (Itoh, [0030]; figure 1; [0056]). This leads to improved clinical workspaces and reduced patient side effects.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN A FRITH whose telephone number is (571)272-1292. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:00-5:30 Second Fri 8:00-4:30.
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.
/SEAN A FRITH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights