Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 31-34 in the reply filed on 08/17/26 is acknowledged.
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.
Claim 32 is 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. Limitation “with a radius of curvature equal to 1-3 times the diameter of the rotary template” is unclear. It is unclear how a radius of curvature can be equal to 1-3 times the diameter of the rotary template. It is unclear what shape is applicant tried to claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
1. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
2. Claims 31-34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Duck et al. (WO 03/103500), in view of Nelson et al. (US 5,999,836) and further in view of Rioux et al. (US 2004/0215101).
3. Addressing claim 31, Duck discloses a rotary scanner comprising a rotary template, a radially oriented ultrasound transducer, a motor, and an acoustically transmissive membrane (see Fig. 1 and claim 15);
wherein the rotary scanner is configured to scan a patient's breast by contacting a scan area of the breast with the template and transducer through the membrane and rotating the template and transducer with the motor relative to the membrane and the breast (see Fig. 1 and claim 13; transducer 5);
the rotary scanner template is configured to carry out the scan while exerting pressure on the breast through the membrane and further has a central area for nipple placement (see Fig. 1, claims 1, 13 and 15).
Duck does not disclose the template has one or more breast-facing recesses and is configured to carry out the scan and further has a central area for nipple placement that is smoother than the area portion of the template with the recesses. In the same field of endeavor, Nelson discloses template has one or more breast-facing recesses and is configured to carry out the scan (see Figs. 13b and 18; recess on both sides of the compression plate). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duck to have the template has one or more breast-facing recesses and is configured to carry out the scan as taught by Nelson because this help lowering the level of patient discomfort typically associated with breast compression (see col. 17, lines 5-12).
In the same field of endeavor, Rioux discloses the rotary scanner template has a central area for nipple placement that is smooth (see Figs. 10-11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Duck to the rotary scanner template has a central area for nipple placement that is smooth as taught by Rioux because this is a designer choice depend on the intended use that only require routine skill in the art that help flatten the nipple. Duck in view of Nelson and Rioux would have a template with recesses and template has a central area for nipple placement that is smoother than the area portion of the template with the recesses.
4. Addressing claims 32-34, Rioux discloses:
addressing claim 32, in which the template is spherically curved, with a radius of curvature equal to 1-3 times the diameter of the rotary template (see Figs. 10-11 and [0078]; examiner interpreted the claim according to applicant drawing figures Fig. 5C; basically it is a cone that has very small slanted angle that is almost flat; Rioux discloses the template can be vary to any shape and size).
addressing claim 33, in which the rotary template is conically curved, with a less than 15° angle (see Figs. 10-11 and [0078]; examiner interpreted the claim according to applicant drawing figures Fig. 5C; basically it is a cone that has very small slanted angle that is almost flat; Rioux discloses the template can be vary to any shape and size).
addressing claim 34, in which the template surface facing the breast is concavely curved (see Figs. 10-11 and Duck’s Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 6,478,739 (see Fig. 8, template with recesses); US 2012/0022376 (see Figs. 5B-A and [0088]; almost flat cone (angle less 15°); truncated cone with smooth central area for nipple placement).
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