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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-18) in the reply filed on 31 August 2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that a serious burden does not exist for searching and examining as all of claims 1-20 in a single application, as the claims all recite a single inventive concept for which searching is likely to overlap. In particular, all claims relate to ergonomic handles for ultrasound equipment comprising a handle body and clamp body connected to the handle body for engaging an ultrasound transducer configured to hold the transducer in an ergonomic position while claim 19 recites a method of controlling an ultrasound transducer providing an ergonomic ultrasound handle device as recited in the claim. This is not found persuasive because although the inventions are directed to related process and apparatus for its practice, the inventions are distinct because the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. The process claims are directed to controlling an ultrasound transducer and require the particulars of controlling the transducer by applying pressure and motion to the handle. In contrast, the apparatus of Invention I is not directed to any control of the transducer and is directed merely to the structure of an ultrasound handle device. The apparatus can be used for a materially different process. Examiner notes there would be a search burden. For instance, the inventions include divergent subject matter (controlling of an ultrasound transducer) and prior art applicable to the structure of an ultrasound handle device would not likely be applicable to controlling an ultrasound transducer.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 31 August 2026
Examiner notes that the process claims may be eligible for a rejoinder should the elected product claim(s) be found allowable and the withdrawn process claims require all the limitations of an allowable product claim.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,446,855. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim 1 of the present application and the patent are directed to an ergonomic ultrasound handle device comprising: a handle body and a clamp body connected to the handle body for engaging an ultrasound transducer, the clamp body including a top end and a bottom end, as well as a clip disposed on the top end of the claim body, the clip for receiving the ultrasound transducer, the clip maintaining the ultrasound transducer in engagement with the handle. Claim 1 of the present application additionally discloses the clip including an opening at an upper end thereof; however, this is considered an obvious variant consistent with a well-known and conventional structure of a clip in the art. Claims 2-10 are anticipated by claim 1 of the patent. Claims 11-13 are anticipated by claims 2-4 of the patent. Claim 14 is anticipated by claim 7 of the patent. Claims 15-18 are directed to the clip forming a generally C-shape clip having two resilient arms. Examiner notes a C-shape clip is a well-known and conventional structure of a clip in the art and the spring fit arms of claims 7 and 8 anticipate the resilient arms of the claims.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: “withing” in line 3 should state “within”. 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 14-18 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 14 recites the limitation "the transducer handle" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the transducer handle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the transducer handle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the transducer handle" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the transducer handle" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Burns et al (2013/0263438).
Regarding claim 1, Burns et al disclose an ergonomic ultrasound handle device comprising:
a handle body (handle 112 – [0021]; fig.1c); and
a clamp body connected to the handle body for engaging an ultrasound transducer (universal clamp 110 may include a slotted locking plate 114 and a slide lock U-channel 116 – [0021]; fig.1c), the clamp body including a top end (110_ and a bottom end (114) (fig.1c), a clip disposed on the top end of the claim body, the clip including an opening at an upper end thereof for receiving the ultrasound transducer (elongate extensions 120a and 120b extending longitudinally from the interface plate 118. When properly coupled to the transducer 102, the interface plate 118 may be configured to engage…the transducer – [0022]; fig.1c), the clip maintaining the ultrasound transducer in engagement with the handle body (figs.1a and 1b).
Regarding claim 2, Burns et al disclose wherein the clamp body is removably, slidably coupled to the handle body (to couple the handle 112 to the universal clamp 110, the coupling aperture 132 may be configured to be seated on or otherwise receive a corresponding coupling post 136 extending from the slotted locking plate 114 – [0025]; fig.1c).
Regarding claim 3, Burns et al disclose wherein a channel is formed in the bottom end of the clamp body (one or more indexing holes 140 – [0026]; fig.1c).
Regarding claim 4, Burns et al disclose wherein a projection, which corresponds to the channel of the clamp body, is disposed on and extends outwardly from the handle body, the channel removably, slidably receiving the projection (the one or more protrusions 134 may be configured to be received in a corresponding one or more indexing holes 140 – [0026]l fig.1c).
Regarding claim 13, Burns et al disclose wherein the clip includes a plurality of clips (fig.1c).
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.
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) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (2013/0263438) in view of Yun et al (2020/0054353).
Regarding claim 5, Burns et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein each of the channel and the projection are substantially T shaped.
However, Yun et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein each of a channel and a projection are substantially T shaped (The rail may be provided in a T-shape, and a rail groove – [0457]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the channel and the projection of Burns et al with being substantially T-shaped of Yun et al as it would provide a guide for securely integrating the channel with the projection.
Regarding claim 6, Burns et al disclose wherein the clamp body further includes a locking mechanism (one or more locking mechanisms 206 – [0028]).
Regarding claims 7-9, Burns et al disclose the invention as claimed and discussed above, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the projection of the handle body has a gap formed therein, wherein the clamp includes an opening formed therethrough, and wherein the opening in the clamp is formed to align with the gap of the projection of the handle body when the clamp is disposed on the handle body.
However, Yun et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, a projection of a handle body has a gap formed therein (the rail may be provided in a T-shape – [0457]. Examiner nots a T shape would require a gap between the protrusion of the upper portion of the T and the base of the structure); wherein the clamp includes an opening formed therethrough (rail groove – [0457]), and wherein the opening in the clamp is formed to align with the gap of the projection of the handle body when the clamp is disposed on the handle body (the rail 5412 may be provided in a T-shape, and a rail groove into which the rail is inserted – [0457]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the projection of Burns et al with a gap formed therein as well as an opening and aligning the opening in the clamp with the gap of the projection as it would provide a guide for securely integrating the channel with the projection.
Regarding claim 8, Burns et al disclose wherein the clamp body includes an opening formed therethrough (fig.2).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (2013/0263438).
Regarding claim 12, Burns et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the clamp is formed as a single unit with the handle body.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the clamp and handle of Burns et al with being formed as a single unit as it would provide a functional equivalent for attaching to an ultrasound transducer. The use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in the prior art would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice. (See MPEP 2144.04 – Making Integral).
Claim(s) 14-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Burns et al (2013/0263438) in view of Gaudreau (2021/0290312).
Regarding claims 14-18, Burns et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the clip includes spring fit arms to engage sides of the transducer handle and hold the transducer handle in place, wherein the opening in the upper end of the clip forms a generally C-shaped clip having two resilient arms to compressively engage sides of the transducer handle and hold the transducer handle within the clamp between the two resilient arms, wherein an inner surface of the resilient arms include a gripping material, texture material, or textured surface that can grippingly engage the transducer handle, wherein the inner surface of the resilient arms includes a cutout that can grippingly engage the transducer handle, and wherein an inner surface of the resilient arms includes a feature complementary to a feature on a surface of the transducer handle, the feature of the resilient arms cooperating with the feature of the transducer handle to facilitate holding the transducer handle with the clamp between the two resilient arms.
However, Gaudreau teaches in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein a clip includes spring fit arms to engage sides of a transducer handle and hold the transducer handle in place (one or more arms 41 – [0029];[0030]), wherein the opening in the upper end of the clip forms a generally C-shaped clip having two resilient arms to compressively engage sides of the transducer handle and hold the transducer handle within the clamp between the two resilient arms ([0029]; fig.2), wherein an inner surface of the resilient arms include a gripping material, texture material, or textured surface that can grippingly engage the transducer handle (the arms may each have an elongated body with a depression 41A – [0029]), wherein the inner surface of the resilient arms includes a cutout that can grippingly engage the transducer handle (depression 41A – [0029], and wherein an inner surface of the resilient arms includes a feature complementary to a feature on a surface of the transducer handle, the feature of the resilient arms cooperating with the feature of the transducer handle to facilitate holding the transducer handle with the clamp between the two resilient arms (the balls 45A are precisely located along the sleeve 45 to be received in the sockets 21A’ of the tool 20 – [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the clip, handle body and clamp body of Burns et al with spring fit arms and resilient arms having a gripping material, texture material or textured surface as it would provide a well-known and conventional biased latching mechanism to securely attach the individual pieces of the structure for use in a sterile medical environment which will not have an adverse effect on the patient.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and a Terminal Disclaimer filed to obviate the Double Patenting Rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCHELLE DEANNA TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-2:30.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571)272-7230. 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.
/ROCHELLE D TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights