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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1, the applicant argues “the ultrasound auxiliary device disclosed in Desai does not have the requirement of "adjusting the temperature of the transducer" as stated by the examiner. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art to which the present invention pertains has no motivation to improve the ultrasound auxiliary device of Desai based on the teachings of Kaouk to achieve the present invention.” (see pg. 6-8 of applicant’s remarks), and the examiner disagrees.
The claim language does not recite “adjusting the temperature of the transducer”. Desai is not used to teach adjusting the temperature of the transducer. Desai is used to teach an ultrasound auxiliary device with fluid inside a cavity, as shown below.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Desai is used to teach an ultrasound auxiliary device with fluid inside a cavity, while Kaouk is used to teach adjusting the thickness of an ultrasound auxiliary device according to a volume or distribution of the fluid located inside the cavity, as shown below.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 3-4 are rejected under35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desaiet al. (US 20190142375A1, published May16, 2019) in view of Kaouk et al. (US 20250134488 A1, published May 1, 2025 with a priority date of August 13, 2021) and Lin (US 20070276246A1, published November 29, 2007), hereinafter referred to as Desai, Kaouk, and Lin, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Desai teaches an ultrasound auxiliary device (Fig. 18), comprising:
a main body (Fig. 18, probe cover 70), including:
a cavity, located inside the main body (Fig. 18, lumen 72 as cavity inside probe cover 70),
wherein the cavity can be used to contain fluid (Fig. 18; see para. 0095 "In any case, a device 76 carrying supplemental couplant, such as a syringe, may be attached to the fitting 74 for delivery of the supplemental couplant [fluid] from the device 76, through the lumen 72 [cavity] and to the couplant layer 32, as needed.").
Desai teaches an ultrasound auxiliary device with fluid inside a cavity, but does not explicitly teach adjusting the thickness of the device according to a volume or distribution of the fluid located inside the cavity.
Whereas, Kaouk, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the ultrasound auxiliary device is configured to adjust a thickness of the device according to a volume or distribution of the fluid located inside the cavity (see para. 0168 "FIG. 8 illustrates sensing head 572 in an inactive state in which acoustic coupler 580 is recessed or retracted within cavity 575."; see para. 0170 "FIG. 9 illustrates sensing head 572 in an active state in which acoustic coupler 580 is extended beyond cavity 575 for positioning acoustic coupler 580 into acoustic contact with external surface 34 of organ 36 (shown in FIG. 1). The extended state of acoustic coupler 580 is achieved by probe controller 610 outputting control signals such that a greater volume of fluid is supplied to bladder 598 as compared to the amount of fluid being withdrawn from bladder 598, increasing the extent of inflation of bladder 598." Change of volume of acoustic coupler 580 (cavity) changes thickness of probe 524 (device)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an ultrasound auxiliary device with fluid inside a cavity, as disclosed in Desai, by also adjusting the thickness of the device according to a volume or distribution of the fluid located inside the cavity, as disclosed in Kaouk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to regulate thetemperature of the transducer, as taught in Kaouk (see para. 0150).
Desai in view of Kaouk teaches a main body, but does not explicitly teach where the main body includes a plurality of positioning marks.
Whereas, Lin, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a plurality of positioning marks, located in the main body, wherein the positioning marks are arranged in at least two directions perpendicular to each other, and the positioning marks have the same spacing in any of the directions (Fig. 1 and 3A-3B; see para. 0024 "For example, the guide device 105 a [main body] may include a slider 303 that slides along the rails 306."; see para. 0030 "For example, there may be optional sensors (e.g., tick marks [positioning marks] on a rail 306 [two directions], to be read by a sensor on the slider 303) configured to detect positions at least every 1 millimeter apart [same spacing] on the guide.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main body, as disclosed in Desai in view of Kaouk, by including to the main body a plurality of positioning marks, as disclosed in Lin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to report the step of movement for the slider to the system, as taught in Lin (see para. 0030).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Desai further teaches wherein the main body is composed of silicone, polyurethane, or rubber (see para. 0067 "The probe contact layer 30 is typically comprised of a flexible polymer such as polyethylene, polyurethane...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Desai further teaches an ultrasound probe, including an ultrasound auxiliary device according to claim 1 at a front end of the ultrasound probe (Fig. 1-2; see para. 0056 " ultrashield 10 [ultrasound auxiliary device] which is sized and configured to affix to the faceplate 12 [front end] of an ultrasound probe 14...").
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Dietz et al. (US 20100036258 A1, published February 11, 2010), hereinafter referred to as Dietz.
Regarding claim 2, Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above, and
Desai further teaches wherein the main body further comprises: an injection port, located on the main body's side wall and in fluid communication with the cavity (Fig. 18; see para. 0095 "In any case, a device 76 carrying supplemental couplant, such as a syringe, may be attached to the fitting 74 [injection port] for delivery of the supplemental couplant from the device 76, through the lumen 72 and to the couplant layer 32, as needed.").
Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin teaches a main body, but does not explicitly teach where the main body includes an exhaust port and a plug closing the exhaust port.
Whereas, Dietz, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches an exhaust port, located on the main body's side wall and in fluid communication with the cavity (Fig. 1; see para. 0046 "One of the ports 137, 138 may be used as an inlet port for the fluid while the other port 137, 138 may be used as an outlet port [exhaust port] for displaced gasses. In this regard, as fluid is passed through the inlet port, gasses may escape (or be pulled from using a vacuum) from the enclosed volume 117 [cavity] through the outlet port."); and
a plug, closing the exhaust port (Fig. 1; see para. 0046 "Once the desired volume of fluid is within the enclosed volume 117, the ports 137, 138 [exhaust port] may be sealed [plugged].").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the main body, as disclosed in Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin, by including to the main body an exhaust port and a plug closing the exhaust port, as disclosed in Dietz. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove gasses from the enclosed volume (see para. 0046), and to have the fluid within the enclosed volume substantially unable to leak out of the enclosed volume, as taught in Dietz (see para. 0045).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Tachibana (US 20180132825A1, published May 17, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Tachibana.
Regarding claim 5, Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 4 above.
Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin teaches an ultrasound probe, but does not explicitly teach where the ultrasound probe includes a CMUT or a PMUT.
Whereas, Tachibana, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasound probe includes a capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducer or a piezoelectric micromachined ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 1-2; see para. 0086 "Note that as the ultrasonic transducers 10 [of ultrasound probe 3], cMUTs (Capacitive Micro-machined Ultrasonic Transducers) may be used instead of PZT.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified an ultrasound probe, as disclosed in Desai in view of Kaouk and Lin, by having the ultrasound probe include a CMUTor a PMUT, as disclosed in Tachibana. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit and receive ultrasonic wave frequencies in a wide frequency range, and have excellent acoustic characteristics, as taught in Tachibana (see para. 0086).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Zhang et al. (CN 201384507 Y, published January 20, 2010) discloses providing low cost through changing the probe distance between the area to be detected of the bag, by changing the relative thickness of the water bladder to achieve common ultrasonic probe can detect the shallow tissue region.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights