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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-14 in the reply filed on 06/19/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-14 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,324,702. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both claim the same ultrasonic catheter device with first, second AIC, distal pMUT interposer, flex cables/circuits and a pMUT array.
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 1-14 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. Limitations “a plurality of flex cables connected to the catheter handle connector; a first adhesive interconnect (AIC) connected to the plurality of flex cables; a distal piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (pMUT) interposer connected to the first AIC; a second AIC connected to the distal pMUT interposer; and a pMUT array connected to the second AIC” and “a micro-electromechanical (MEMS) based Piezoelectric Micromachined Ultrasonic Transducer (pMUT) array disposed within the distal portion of the catheter body, wherein the MEMS based pMUT array comprises a plurality of linear phased array elements each configured to create an individually focused beam; an ultra-high density (UHD) flexible circuit interposer connected to the MEMS based pMUT array through an ultra-high density (UHD) interconnect pad, wherein the UHD flexible circuit interposer includes near zero evidence interfacial vias connecting to the MEMS based pMUT array; a first layer of Adhesive Interconnect (AIC) positioned proximal to the UHD flexible circuit interposer; a second layer of Adhesive Interconnect (AIC) positioned distal to the UHD flexible circuit interposer and a plurality of electronic flex circuits connecting the handle connector to the first layer of AIC” are unclear. It is unclear how these components are interconnected. As see in Fig. 3, the order of each component connects to each other. It is unclear how the signal would flow from handle connector to pMUT array. It is unclear how the signal would flow from pMUT interposer to pMUT array.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dausch et al. (US 2010/0168583 (provided in the IDS)).
Addressing claim 1, Dausch discloses an ultrasonic catheter comprising:
a catheter handle connector (see Figs. 9-13, 505 and any portion at the proximal end of the catheter is the catheter handle connector;
a plurality of flex cables connected to the catheter handle connector (see [0083], Figs. 9-13 and 6; 507 and 1507);
a first adhesive interconnect (AIC) connected to the plurality of flex cables (see Fig. 8 and [0078-0079]; 256 is the adhesive (epoxy interconnect) connect to flex cable 301);
a distal piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (pMUT) interposer connected to the first AIC (see [0078-0079] and Fig. 8, substrate 320 is the pMUT interposer);
a second AIC connected to the distal pMUT interposer (see Fig. 8 and [0078-0079]; 256 is the AIC (epoxy interconnect) connect to the distal pMUT interposer; 256 has first and second layer);
a pMUT array connected to the second AIC (see Figs. 8 and [0079]; 256 connect to pMUT array 10).
Addressing claims 6, 9 and 11, Dausch discloses:
addressing claim 6, wherein a compression connection is made among the plurality of flex cables, the first AIC, the distal pMUT interposer, the second AIC, and the pMUT array (see Figs. 8 and 16).
addressing claim 9, further comprising a catheter body having a longitudinal axis, wherein the pMUT array is configured to send a pressure wave and receive a returning pressure wave echo through the distal pMUT interposer (see Figs. 8, 16 and [0006]; pMUT array on the IC substrate (pMUT interposer) send ultrasound pressure wave and receive a returning pressure wave to generate image through the IC substrate).
addressing claim 11, wherein the pMUT array comprises a plurality of linear phased array elements each configured to create an individually focused beam (see [0091]; phase array controls each individual pMUT element with a signal to create an individually focused beam).
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 2-5 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dausch et al. (US 2010/0168583 (provided in the IDS)) and in view of Ketterling (US 2008/0228074).
Addressing claims 2-5 and 10, Dausch does not disclose wherein the distal pMUT interposer includes InvisiVia connections configured to bring electronic signals from one side of the distal pMUT interposer to the other; wherein the InvisiVia connections create a flat and planar interconnect diameter of not more than 5 µm; wherein each of the InvisiVia connections is created from a z-axis interconnect of two or more signals or ground layers utilizing an ultraviolet (UV) laser with a hole diameter of no more than 10 µm that is subsequently copper plated to form a closed and highly planar attachment surface; wherein each of the InvisiVia connections has a first end and a second end, with diameters ranging from 5 µm to 25 µm and 0 µm to 10 µm respectively and wherein the InvisiVia connections are between 30 to 128 in number. Dausch discloses IC substrate (pMUT interposer) to bring electronic signals from one side to the other; however, he does not disclose specific connection technology InvisiVia (microvias). Ketterling discloses using microvias as electrical connections (see [0019], [0021] and [0026]; Ketterling also discloses UV light/laser etching technology; microvias is µm size; any µm diameter and any number of connections is a designer choice that only require routine skill in the art; any number of connection elements and size could be made). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Dausch to have wherein the distal pMUT interposer includes InvisiVia connections configured to bring electronic signals from one side of the distal pMUT interposer to the other; wherein the InvisiVia connections create a flat and planar interconnect diameter of not more than 5 µm; wherein each of the InvisiVia connections is created from a z-axis interconnect of two or more signals or ground layers utilizing an ultraviolet (UV) laser with a hole diameter of no more than 10 µm that is subsequently copper plated to form a closed and highly planar attachment surface; wherein each of the InvisiVia connections has a first end and a second end, with diameters ranging from 5 µm to 25 µm and 0 µm to 10 µm respectively and wherein the InvisiVia connections are between 30 to 128 in number as taught by Ketterling because microvias offer several advantages that make them the preferred choice for modern electronic devices (improve signal integrity; shorter signal path, increase pcb density, enhanced thermal management and cost-effective for high volume production).
No art rejection for claims 12-14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2007/0019028; US 2017/0254885 and US 2015/0289929.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HIEN NGOC NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7031. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/HIEN N NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights