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 .
Note: all citations with respect to the specification of present application are citing the paragraph number in the Pre-Grant Publication US 2026/0124001 A1.
Claim Objections
Claim 1, 4 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 line 9, limitation "anatomical structure" should read "anatomical structure;".
Claim 1 line 11, limitation "anatomical structure " should read "the anatomical structure".
Claim 4 line 3, limitation "tracking subsystem" should read "a tracking subsystem".
Claim 4 line 9, limitation "anatomical structure" should read "the anatomical structure".
Claim 7 line 9, limitation "the US imaging data" should read "the US imaging data;".
Claim 7 line 11, limitation "anatomical structure" should read "the anatomical structure".
Claim 7 line 12 – 13, limitation "fro the optical tracking array" should read "from the optical tracking array; and".
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.
Claim 1 – 3 and 5 – 9 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 1 recites limitation “a US transducer” in line 8. It is unclear the above transducer is a newly introduced different transducer or the same ultrasound (US) transducer as recited in line 5.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable ultrasound transducer.
Claim 1 recites limitation “US imaging data of anatomical structure” in line 9. It is unclear the above imaging data is a newly introduced different imaging data or the same imaging data as recited in line 5 – 6. In addition, it is also unclear the above anatomical structure is a newly introduced different anatomical structure or the same anatomical structure as recited in line 6.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable US imaging data of any reasonable anatomical structure.
Claim 2 recites limitation “the US transducer comprises a two-dimensional planar array of US transducers” in line 2. It is unclear the “US transducers” are different structural element or the same US transducer as recited before the phrase “comprising”. It is also unclear how a single transducer can comprise multiple transducers themselves.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable transducer with an array of transducer elements.
Claim 3 recites limitation “the US transducer comprises: a linear array of US transducers” in line 2 – 3. It is unclear the “US transducers” are different structural element or the same US transducer as recited before the phrase “comprises”. It is also unclear how a single transducer can comprise multiple transducers themselves.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable transducer with an array of transducer elements.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The corresponding disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Each of the US transducers 2904 in the at least one pair have a major axis and a minor axis, where the major axes of the US transducers 2904 in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers 2902 in the linear array” in [0232]. The specification does not provide any information to define the rang or degree of “substantially perpendicular”. It is unclear with which range can a positional arrangement of one element be considered as substantially perpendicular to another element.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable degree of arrangement.
Claim 5 recites limitation “the US transducer comprises a two-dimensional planar array of US transducers” in line 2 – 3. It is unclear the “US transducers” are different structural element or the same US transducer as recited before the phrase “comprising”. It is also unclear how a single transducer can comprise multiple transducers themselves.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable transducer with an array of transducer elements.
Claim 6 recites limitation “the US transducer comprises: a linear array of US transducers” in line 3. It is unclear the “US transducers” are different structural element or the same US transducer as recited before the phrase “comprises”. It is also unclear how a single transducer can comprise multiple transducers themselves.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable transducer with an array of transducer elements.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 6 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The corresponding disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Each of the US transducers 2904 in the at least one pair have a major axis and a minor axis, where the major axes of the US transducers 2904 in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers 2902 in the linear array” in [0232]. The specification does not provide any information to define the rang or degree of “substantially perpendicular”. It is unclear with which range can a positional arrangement of one element be considered as substantially perpendicular to another element.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable degree of arrangement.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the US imaging data" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites limitation “ultrasound imaging data of anatomical structure” in line 13. It is unclear the above imaging data is a newly introduced different imaging data or the same imaging data as recited in line 10 – 11. In addition, it is also unclear the above anatomical structure is a newly introduced different anatomical structure or the same anatomical structure as recited in line 6.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable US imaging data of any reasonable anatomical structure.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the ultrasound transducer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites limitation “the US transducer comprises a two-dimensional planar array of US transducers” in line 2. It is unclear the “US transducers” are different structural element or the same US transducer as recited before the phrase “comprising”. It is also unclear how a single transducer can comprise multiple transducers themselves.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable transducer with an array of transducer elements.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the ultrasound transducer" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites limitation “the US transducer comprises: a linear array of US transducers” in line 2 – 3. It is unclear the “US transducers” are different structural element or the same US transducer as recited before the phrase “comprises”. It is also unclear how a single transducer can comprise multiple transducers themselves.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable transducer with an array of transducer elements.
The term “substantially perpendicular” in claim 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
The corresponding disclosure in the specification of present application is recited as: “Each of the US transducers 2904 in the at least one pair have a major axis and a minor axis, where the major axes of the US transducers 2904 in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers 2902 in the linear array” in [0232]. The specification does not provide any information to define the rang or degree of “substantially perpendicular”. It is unclear with which range can a positional arrangement of one element be considered as substantially perpendicular to another element.
Thus, the above limitation renders claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the above limitation is interpreted as any reasonable degree of arrangement.
Therefore, claim 1 – 3 and 5 – 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), as being indefinite.
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 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Boctor et al. (US 2015/0297177 A1; published on 10/22/2015) (hereinafter "Boctor").
Regarding claim 1, Boctor discloses a surgical robot system ("FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a robot-assisted ultrasound system 100 …" [0104]; see also Fig.2 for an equivalent system) comprising:
a robot ("… a robot 104 …" [0104]; see Fig.1) having a robot base (see Robot base shown in Fig.16), a robot arm coupled to the robot base ("… a manipulator arm 106 …" [0104]; see Fig.1 and Fig.16), and an end-effector coupled to the robot arm ("… a tool end 108 …" [0104]; see Fig.1), the end-effector configured to guide movement of a surgical instrument ("… a robot control system 112 configured to control at least one of a position or a pose of the second ultrasound probe 110 …" [0104]; "… send robot poses when requested; receive robot poses; and move the tooltip to the desired robot pose." [0270]);
an ultrasound (US) transducer coupled to the end-effector ("… a second ultrasound probe 110 attached to the tool end 108 of the manipulator arm 106." [0104]) and operative to output US imaging data of anatomical structure proximately located to the end-effector ("… to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]); and
an optical tracking array comprising a plurality of spaced apart markers ("According to image segmentation results, the four balls of the marker A, B, C, D are segmented from depth image … FIG. 26B shows how an optical marker is fixed on the probe ..." [0200]);
a US transducer rigidly coupled to and spaced apart from the optical tracking array (see Fig.6C; "FIG. 26B shows how an optical marker is fixed on the probe, such that the marker's position on the probe is constant." [0200]; see also Fig.26A and Fig.26B), wherein the US transducer is operative to output US imaging data of anatomical structure ("… to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104])
at least one processor operative to obtain an image volume for the patient ("An ultrasound processing and display system 114 is configured to communicate with at least one of the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]; "An electrical system composed of ... a signal processor ... is connected to the AE element." [0212]) and to track pose of the end-effector relative to anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the US imaging data ("At each pose, the 3-D position of the marker with respect to the camera coordinate frame is read by the MicronTracker while the 2-D positions of the fiducial are extracted from US images." [0168]).
Regarding claim 2, Boctor discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and further discloses wherein:
the US transducer comprises a two-dimensional planar array of US transducers ("A mechanical add-on enables the sweeping for any type of 2-D probe [2]. The next generation of 3-D US was introduced by constructing 2-D arrays of US elements known as 3-D or matrix array probes [1]." [0143]) connected by a mounting arm to the optical tracking array (see Fig.6C), and each of the US transducers is configured to output US pulses and detect returned US reflections of the anatomical structure ("… activating one or several of the transducers in one probe as the transmitter and the rest as the receiver [14]. Such a system can make US tomographic imaging available for more general applications." [0146]).
Regarding claim 4, Boctor discloses a surgical robot system ("FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a robot-assisted ultrasound system 100 …" [0104]; see also Fig.2 for an equivalent system) comprising:
a base platform subsystem (see Robot base shown in Fig.16), a computer subsystem ("An ultrasound processing and display system 114 is configured to communicate with at least one of the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]; "An electrical system composed of ... a signal processor ... is connected to the AE element." [0212]), a motion control subsystem ("The system also includes a robot control system 112 …" [0104]; "… with the robot control system 212." [0105]) and tracking subsystem operatively communicating ("The tracking system 216 is adapted to communicate with the robot control system 212." [0105]; see Fig.1 and Fig.2 for the communication links); and
an ultrasound transducer ("… a second ultrasound probe 110 attached to the tool end 108 of the manipulator arm 106." [0104]);
wherein the motion control subsystem further comprises an end-effector ("… a tool end 108 …" [0104]; see Fig.1 and Fig.2) and a controller ("… a command is sent to the robot controller to move the tooltip to the goal position (Pose2)." [0155]);
wherein the ultrasound (US) transducer coupled to the end-effector ("… a second ultrasound probe 110 attached to the tool end 108 of the manipulator arm 106." [0104]) and operative to output US imaging data of anatomical structure proximately located to the end-effector ("… to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]),
at least one processor operative to obtain an image volume for the patient ("An ultrasound processing and display system 114 is configured to communicate with at least one of the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]; "An electrical system composed of ... a signal processor ... is connected to the AE element." [0212]) and to track pose of the end-effector relative to anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the US imaging data ("At each pose, the 3-D position of the marker with respect to the camera coordinate frame is read by the MicronTracker while the 2-D positions of the fiducial are extracted from US images." [0168]).
Regarding claim 5, Boctor discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 4, and further discloses wherein:
the US transducer comprises a two-dimensional planar array of US transducers ("A mechanical add-on enables the sweeping for any type of 2-D probe [2]. The next generation of 3-D US was introduced by constructing 2-D arrays of US elements known as 3-D or matrix array probes [1]." [0143]) connected by a mounting arm to the optical tracking array (see Fig.6C), and each of the US transducers is configured to output US pulses and detect returned US reflections of the anatomical structure ("… activating one or several of the transducers in one probe as the transmitter and the rest as the receiver [14]. Such a system can make US tomographic imaging available for more general applications." [0146]).
Regarding claim 7, Boctor discloses a surgical robot system ("FIG. 1 is a schematic illustration of a robot-assisted ultrasound system 100 …" [0104]; see also Fig.2 for an equivalent system) comprising:
a base platform subsystem (see Robot base shown in Fig.16), a computer subsystem ("An ultrasound processing and display system 114 is configured to communicate with at least one of the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]; "An electrical system composed of ... a signal processor ... is connected to the AE element." [0212]), a motion control subsystem ("The system also includes a robot control system 112 …" [0104]; "… with the robot control system 212." [0105]) and tracking subsystem operatively communicating ("The tracking system 216 is adapted to communicate with the robot control system 212." [0105]; see Fig.1 and Fig.2 for the communication links);
a first ultrasound transducer coupled to an end effector ("… a second ultrasound probe 110 attached to the tool end 108 of the manipulator arm 106." [0104]; "… the first and second ultrasound probes 202, 210." [0105]); and
an anatomical structure tracker apparatus comprising an optical tracking array and a second ultrasound transducer ("The tracking system can comprise an optical marker 220 attached to the first ultrasound probe." [0105]; see Fig.1, 2 and 6C);
at least one processor operative to obtain an image volume for the patient ("An ultrasound processing and display system 114 is configured to communicate with at least one of the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]; "An electrical system composed of ... a signal processor ... is connected to the AE element." [0212]) and to track pose of the end-effector relative to anatomical structure captured in the image volume based on the US imaging data ("At each pose, the 3-D position of the marker with respect to the camera coordinate frame is read by the MicronTracker while the 2-D positions of the fiducial are extracted from US images." [0168])
wherein the first ultrasound transducer is configured to be operative to output ultrasound imaging data of anatomical structure proximately located to the end-effector ("… to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]),
wherein the second ultrasound transducer is rigidly coupled to and spaced apart fro the optical tracking array ("The tracking system can comprise an optical marker 220 attached to the first ultrasound probe." [0105]; see Fig.1, 2 and 6C)
wherein the second ultrasound transducer is operative to out ultrasound imaging data of anatomical structure ("… to receive and display an ultrasound image based on the first and second ultrasound probes 102, 110 acting in conjunction with each other." [0104]).
Regarding claim 8, Boctor discloses all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and further discloses wherein:
the US transducer comprises a two-dimensional planar array of US transducers ("A mechanical add-on enables the sweeping for any type of 2-D probe [2]. The next generation of 3-D US was introduced by constructing 2-D arrays of US elements known as 3-D or matrix array probes [1]." [0143]) connected by a mounting arm to the optical tracking array (see Fig.6C), and each of the US transducers is configured to output US pulses and detect returned US reflections of the anatomical structure ("… activating one or several of the transducers in one probe as the transmitter and the rest as the receiver [14]. Such a system can make US tomographic imaging available for more general applications." [0146]).
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 3, 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boctor, as applied in claim 1, 4 and 7 respectively, and further in view of Call et al. (US 2018/0068155 A1; published on 03/08/2018) (hereinafter "Call").
Regarding claim 3, Boctor teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 1, and Boctor further teaches wherein: the US transducer comprises:
a linear array of US transducers ("Two identical Ultrasonix L14-5W/60 (Analogic Corporation, Richmond, BC, Canada) 60-mm, 128-array, linear transducers are used as the US probes." [0150]) each having a major axis and a minor axis (these are inherent geometrical properties of any transducer element), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array are parallel (this is inherent geometrical properties for an array since each element in the array are linearly arranged in one direction).
Boctor fails to explicitly teach at least one pair of other US transducers spaced apart on opposite sides of the linear array of US transducers, each of the US transducers in the at least one pair having a major axis and a minor axis, wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Call teaches wherein: the US transducer comprises:
a linear array of US transducers ("The probe 470 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer arrays 472, 474 ... (also referred to as 1D arrays) of and one or more transmit elements 480." [0206]; "Each array 472, 474 ... may comprise a plurality of linear transducer elements 482 ..." [0207]) each having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig.6, array 472 and 474 are interpreted as the linear array of US transducers, the major axis is horizontal, the minor axis is vertical), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array are parallel (see Fig.6); and
at least one pair of other US transducers spaced apart on opposite sides of the linear array of US transducers ("The probe 470 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer arrays ... 476, 478 (also referred to as 1D arrays) of and one or more transmit elements 480." [0206]; "Each array ... 476, 478 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer elements 482 ..." [0207]; see Fig.6), each of the US transducers in the at least one pair having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig.6, array 476 and 478 are interpreted as the at least one pair of other US transducers, the major axis is vertical, the minor axis is horizontal), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array (see Fig.6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ultrasound probe as taught by Boctor with ultrasound transducer arrangement is the probe as taught by Call. Doing so would make it possible "for performing an example motion detection and motion tracking process by evaluating echo data in two substantially planar image regions" (see Call; [0206]).
Regarding claim 6, Boctor teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 4, and Boctor further teaches wherein: the US transducer comprises:
a linear array of US transducers ("Two identical Ultrasonix L14-5W/60 (Analogic Corporation, Richmond, BC, Canada) 60-mm, 128-array, linear transducers are used as the US probes." [0150]) each having a major axis and a minor axis (these are inherent geometrical properties of any transducer element), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array are parallel (this is inherent geometrical properties for an array since each element in the array are linearly arranged in one direction).
Boctor fails to explicitly teach at least one pair of other US transducers spaced apart on opposite sides of the linear array of US transducers, each of the US transducers in the at least one pair having a major axis and a minor axis, wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Call teaches wherein: the US transducer comprises:
a linear array of US transducers ("The probe 470 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer arrays 472, 474 ... (also referred to as 1D arrays) of and one or more transmit elements 480." [0206]; "Each array 472, 474 ... may comprise a plurality of linear transducer elements 482 ..." [0207]) each having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig.6, array 472 and 474 are interpreted as the linear array of US transducers, the major axis is horizontal, the minor axis is vertical), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array are parallel (see Fig.6); and
at least one pair of other US transducers spaced apart on opposite sides of the linear array of US transducers ("The probe 470 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer arrays ... 476, 478 (also referred to as 1D arrays) of and one or more transmit elements 480." [0206]; "Each array ... 476, 478 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer elements 482 ..." [0207]; see Fig.6), each of the US transducers in the at least one pair having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig.6, array 476 and 478 are interpreted as the at least one pair of other US transducers, the major axis is vertical, the minor axis is horizontal), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array (see Fig.6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ultrasound probe as taught by Boctor with ultrasound transducer arrangement is the probe as taught by Call. Doing so would make it possible "for performing an example motion detection and motion tracking process by evaluating echo data in two substantially planar image regions" (see Call; [0206]).
Regarding claim 9, Boctor teaches all claim limitations, as applied in claim 7, and Boctor further teaches wherein: the US transducer comprises:
a linear array of US transducers ("Two identical Ultrasonix L14-5W/60 (Analogic Corporation, Richmond, BC, Canada) 60-mm, 128-array, linear transducers are used as the US probes." [0150]) each having a major axis and a minor axis (these are inherent geometrical properties of any transducer element), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array are parallel (this is inherent geometrical properties for an array since each element in the array are linearly arranged in one direction).
Boctor fails to explicitly teach at least one pair of other US transducers spaced apart on opposite sides of the linear array of US transducers, each of the US transducers in the at least one pair having a major axis and a minor axis, wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Call teaches wherein: the US transducer comprises:
a linear array of US transducers ("The probe 470 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer arrays 472, 474 ... (also referred to as 1D arrays) of and one or more transmit elements 480." [0206]; "Each array 472, 474 ... may comprise a plurality of linear transducer elements 482 ..." [0207]) each having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig.6, array 472 and 474 are interpreted as the linear array of US transducers, the major axis is horizontal, the minor axis is vertical), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array are parallel (see Fig.6); and
at least one pair of other US transducers spaced apart on opposite sides of the linear array of US transducers ("The probe 470 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer arrays ... 476, 478 (also referred to as 1D arrays) of and one or more transmit elements 480." [0206]; "Each array ... 476, 478 may comprise a plurality of linear transducer elements 482 ..." [0207]; see Fig.6), each of the US transducers in the at least one pair having a major axis and a minor axis (see Fig.6, array 476 and 478 are interpreted as the at least one pair of other US transducers, the major axis is vertical, the minor axis is horizontal), wherein the major axes of the US transducers in the at least one pair are parallel and extend in a direction that is substantially perpendicular to a direction of the major axes of the US transducers in the linear array (see Fig.6).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ultrasound probe as taught by Boctor with ultrasound transducer arrangement is the probe as taught by Call. Doing so would make it possible "for performing an example motion detection and motion tracking process by evaluating echo data in two substantially planar image regions" (see Call; [0206]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Urabe et al (US 2012/0296214 A1; published on 11/22/2012) (hereinafter "Urabe") teach an ultrasound probe of a linear array of transducer elements with additional element arranged along the side of the linear array.
Lin et al. (CN 102258399 B; published on 11/285/2012) (hereinafter "Lin") teach an optical tracking markers array disposed on an ultrasound pad with 2D array of transducer elements.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAO SHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-8059. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
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 M. 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.
/CHAO SHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights