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 .
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 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-2, 4-5 of U.S. Patent No. 12,383,235. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patent no. ‘235 anticipates the subject matter in the instant claims. Claim 1 recites a method, comprising: emitting an ultrasound beam onto a blood volume from an array of ultrasound transducers in a catheter placed in a blood pool in an organ by providing driving signals to the array of ultrasound transducers (encompassed by emitting an ultrasound beam in claim 1 of ‘235): adjusting relative phases of the driving signals provided to the array of ultrasound transducers to focus at least a portion of ultrasound beam onto a plurality of locations within the blood volume, the plurality of locations forming a path in blood between the catheter and a wall surface of the organ (encompassed by adjusting relative phases in claim 1 of ‘235); characterizing a blood velocity profile over the path (encompassed by characterizing a blood velocity profile in claim 1 of ‘235); receiving, in the array, echo signals reflected in response to the emitted ultrasound beam; distinguishing, in the echo signals, based on the blood velocity profile, between first spectral signal components having Doppler shifts characteristic of blood and second spectral signal components having Doppler shifts characteristic of tissue of the organ (encompassed by receiving echo signals in claim 1 of ‘235); filtering out the first spectral signal components from the echo signals (encompassed by suppressing the first spectral signal components in claims 1 or 2 of ‘235); and displaying an ultrasound image based on the second spectral signal components in the echo signals (encompassed by displaying in claim 1 of ‘235). Claim 2 is encompassed by claim 4 of ‘235. Claim 3 is encompassed by claim 5 of ‘235. Claims 4-5 are encompassed by claim 4 of ‘235. Claim 8 is encompassed by claims 1 and 5 of ‘235. Claims 9-11 are encompassed by claim 4 of ‘235. Claim 14 is encompassed by claim 6 of ‘235. Claim 15 is encompassed by claim 9 of ‘235. Claim 16 is encompassed by claim 10 of ‘235. Claim 17 is encompassed by claim 9 of ‘235.
Claims 6-7, 12-13, and 19-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 5-6 of U.S. Patent No. 12,383,235 in view of Liang et al. (US 2006/0030777). Patent no. 12,383,235 anticipates the subject matter substantially as claimed (see above) except for applying frequency-domain filtering or defining a filtered range. However, Liang et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor it is well known to separate frequency signal from blood and the vessel wall ([0007]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided patent no. ‘235 with frequency filtering as taught by Liang et al. as it is well known for vessel wall detection ([0007]).
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed combination of subject matter, particularly, adjusting relative phases of the driving signals to focus at least a portion of the ultrasound onto a plurality of locations within the blood volume, the plurality of locations forming a path in blood between the catheter and wall surface of the organ; and characterizing a blood velocity profile over the path.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights