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 5/15/2025. These drawings are accepted.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee Seong-Won et al (KR 2017/0027652) in view of Dae Seung Kim et al (KR 2015/0064012).
Regarding claims 1-3 and 9-11, Lee Seong-Won et al discloses and teaches an ultrasound signal generation method for cavitation bubble control including transmission of a signal towards a target at a frequency which can expand a cavitation bubble in a target area, and a second condition of the signal which is capable of stopping the expansion of a cavitation bubble (See Fig 9, 10, 0075, 0076, 0078). The transmission rates (and comparatively, ratios) are based on the properties of the pulses and irradiation times for trigger/heating pulses (See Fig 9, 0078 and setting conditions) and the driving control prevents the cavitation of targets while also providing treatments of others ((0076-0078) elements 315, 81). Lee Seong-Won et al fails to disclose a transmission ratio determination unit to solve for transmission ratios between the first and second frequency ultrasonic signal and to output that second frequency on either a cyclical or continuous pattern (based on target and desired outcome, see database (0076 0078, element 80)).
Attention is hereby directed to the teachings of Seung Kim et al which, in the same area of endeavor, expressly teaches the treatment with multiple transducers for treatment (0015-0018)) and control of multiple frequencies on both a cyclical and continuous patten (Abs, 0022-0023). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, given example II of Seung Kim for transmission ratio dependent switching of pulse patterns, to have utilized the teachings of Seong-Wong with those threshold signal intensities to set frequencies to expand or stop the cavitation bubbles thereof (0066 0076, Seong-Wong; 0022-0023, Seung Kim).
Regarding claims 4-5 and 12-13, Attention is again directed as above to Seung Kim et al which discloses the setting of frequency ratio either simultaneously or alternately as well as the intensity, transmission ratio, and irradiation time (see 0047-0052, with summing of signals to yield between 0-100%) for the same reasons outlined above with respect to claims 1-3 and 9-11.
Regarding claims 6-8 and 14-16, Seong-Won et al discloses and teaches the treatment with the first frequency and conditions to generate and control expansion of the cavitation bubble in the region of interest (0076) and whereby the second frequency stops such expansion to control/prevent the treatment outside the region so targeted/desired (0076, elements 120, 100, 140). Furthermore, Seong-Won et al disclose and teach the interrogation and generation of an ultrasound image with received echoes as well as the inclusion of monitoring conditions of the patient (including lesions, element 315, attached to 314, detecting 90 (tissue including lesion/focus)). While Seong-Won et al disclose the monitoring of “tissues”, lesions are not specifically cited.
Attention is hereby briefly directed to the background of Seung Kim et al which expressly denotes cancer, tumors, and lesions as being the targeted tissues for treatment and monitoring. Seung Kim additionally discloses the imaging and monitoring of the targeted region for treatment (Claim 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to utilized the designation of cancer and lesions as the target of HIFU treatment and imaging monitoring as denoted by Seung Kim with the system for combination tissue monitoring and imaging of Seong-Won et al for HIFU wave control and feedback during treatment (Seung Kim, 0001-0005, abstract, claim 1).
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