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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/17/2025 has been entered.
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.
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.
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) 6 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0021016 A1 by Yoshioka et al. (hereafter Yoshioka, previously of record) further in view of US 2018/0125456 A1 by Akahane et al. (hereafter Akahane, previously of record).
Regarding Claim 6, Yoshioka discloses an ultrasonic probe (Fig. 2) comprising:
a transmitting/receiving circuit configured to control transmission and reception of ultrasonic waves (Fig. 2, wherein illustrated units other than the transducer can be considered as the transmitting/receiving circuit; [0028]-[0028], wherein the ultrasonic waves are being transmitted and received);
a power supply circuit configured to function as a power source for the transmitting/receiving circuit, and generate switching noise (Fig. 2, wherein a battery unit and a circuitry used to supply the power; [0057], wherein the power supply circuit powers the other components of the probe and generates switching noise), the power supply circuit includes a switching regulator and a switching circuit (Fig. 2, battery unit and power units and circuitry; [0057]-[0058], wherein “The power source ICs 16, 17 are, e.g., a DC-DC converter or an LDO (Low Drop Out). The DC-DC converter is also called a switching regulator, and the LDO is also called a linear regulator or a series regulator. The DC-DC converter converts the power (conversion of the voltage and an electric current) by fast switching that uses a semiconductor device, and hence causes occurrence of switching noises. Each of the oscillators of the transducer 10 resonates at a natural frequency (e.g., 6.5 MHz).”); and
a probe control circuit configured to determine a scope mode, and perform control of a frequency of the switching noise generated by the switching regulator of the power supply circuit according to a determined scan mode (reading scan mode under the broadest reasonable interpretation thereof this could merely mean the instant scan settings (which are not limited in the claim for claim 6, and which only comprise the transmission/reception band as per claim 9) in which case see either of Yoshioka’s [0004] or [0037] for this operating according to some mode such that results in US images being gathered), wherein the probe control circuit is further configured to control the switching noise generated by the power supply circuit to avoid a transmission/reception band corresponding to the ultrasonic probe … (see Yoshioka’s [0057]-[0058], wherein “The power source IC 16 is the DC-DC converter, in which case an operation frequency (switching frequency) of the switching operation of the power source IC 16 is deviated from a resonance frequency of each oscillator of the transducer 10. For example, a predetermined frequency band (a width of the predetermined frequency) including the resonance frequency of each oscillator of the transducer 10 is different from the operation frequency of the switching operation of the power source IC 16. This enables the restraint of the mixing of the noises into the echo signals transmitted to the IC chip 11 from the transducer 10 and the echo signals transmitted to the IC chip 12 from the IC chip 11” and “For instance, the predetermined frequency band including the resonance frequency of each oscillator of the transducer 10 may be set equal to or higher than 6.5 MHz but equal to or lower than 9.5 MHz, and the operation frequency of the switching operation of the power source IC 16 may also be set at 10 MHz.” which this explicitly requires that the T/R band (i.e. 6.5-9.5 MHz) be lower than the switching frequency (10 MHz) and thus explicitly avoids the switching noise in the same manner set forth in the applicant’s own specification at [0069] and shown in applicant’s own Fig. 6).
In the foregoing the examiner omitted the limitation “by changing a switching duty of the switching circuit according to the determined scan mode” as indicated by ellipsis as Yoshioka alone would not fully teach this limitation.
However, Akahane in the same or eminently related field of US imaging (see Arkane’s Abstract) discloses changing a switching duty of the switching circuit ([0062] “a duty ratio of when a switching element is switched on and off is controlled by feedback control, so that the voltage outputted from the DC/DC converter is adjusted to a predetermined value (in the case of the PWM drive system), for example. In this case, a switching frequency is set as a frequency of a switching signal to be used for duty ratio control, for example”) as well as further providing how and why this switching of the duty cycle is determined by the scan mode, and specifically the transmission/reception band thereof (see Akahane [0012] noting e.g. “setting at least one operation type that defines transmission timing of ultrasound pulses in each of the first and the second operation modes; and setting a switching frequency such that neither a fundamental frequency nor a harmonic of the switching signal used for driving the switching power supply is included in a Doppler observation frequency band to be determined based on the first and the second operation modes and on the operation types.”. i.e. the transmission/reception band of the scan type, first and/or second, is avoided. Likewise [0103]-[0109] describe that the switching frequency changes by operation type, i.e. by scan mode, as the PRF, i.e. the transmission/reception frequency, determines what switching frequencies must be avoided to not include the switching noise. Likewise [0125]-[0126] further explain, wherein “it is possible to set a switching frequency in consideration that the Doppler observation frequency band is different for each of the operation types in the combined operation mode. In this way, it is possible to set a switching frequency suitable for each operation type in the combined operation mode, and to reduce a switching noise superimposed on a detection result of a Doppler shift frequency. That is, the switching noise caused by a switching power supply can be prevented from being mixed into the detection result of the Doppler shift frequency.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the imaging probe, as taught by Yoshioka, to control the switching noise by changing the switching duty, like taught by Akahane, in order to provide an effective noise cancellation method by controlling the switching duty of the switching circuit. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 9, Yoshioka IVO Akahane teaches the basic invention as given above in regards to claim 6, and the same modification proposed above under Akahane teaches: 9. The ultrasonic probe according to claim 6, wherein the probe control circuit is further configured to acquire a duty ratio depending on the transmission/reception band of the determined scan mode, and drive the switching regulator depending on the acquired duty ratio (as addressed above, see Akahane’s [0062] noting that “a duty ratio of when a switching element is switched on and off is controlled by feedback control, so that the voltage outputted from the DC/DC converter is adjusted to a predetermined value (in the case of the PWM drive system), for example. In this case, a switching frequency is set as a frequency of a switching signal to be used for duty ratio control, for example.” This is further explained in [0099] using the same duty ratio language and describing how this relates to the PRF, e.g. in the context of Figs. 7-8,, and more importantly Akahane continues on in [0103]-[0109] to explain how this varies by operation type and thus by the transmission/reception band of the determined scan mode).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 3-5, filed 01/17/2025, with respect to the 112(a)/(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The associated rejections of the previous office action have been withdrawn.
For compact prosecution purposes the examiner notes that in their arguments the applicant underlines and emphasizes modality type (e.g. B-mode/Doppler) in their argument. The examiner has withdrawn the rejection based on the broader wording of claim 6 and the wording of dependent claim 9 addressing the transmission/reception band of the scan mode (which is directly related to PRF) and not on the basis that the scan mode being of a particular modality is under examination. To further compact prosecution the examiner notes that certain aspects of determining the switching frequency based on, e.g. being specifically B-mode would require additional art (e.g. Choi, of record) but are not under examination. If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to how the modality itself limits the switching frequency than they are welcome to reintroduce this into the claim; however, it appears that this would require the examiner to re-rase the 112(a) rejection,
Applicant's arguments filed 01/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive as follows:
On pages 5-8 the applicant addresses the 103(a) rejection and opines that the probe control circuit of the amended claim is not taught. In this instance the examiner is of the opinion that Yoshioka taught a basic probe control circuit, and Akahane taught how and why to use the transmission/reception band of the scan to change the switching frequency in a manner consisted with the claims; however, the examiner must admit that the applicant’s argument would have been correct with regards to the previous rejection as the examiner has had to cite new portions of Akahane to cover the applicant’s new claim limitations. Therefore, the examiner is not convinced by the argument for the reasons set forth in the new grounds of rejection above and incorporated herein to explain the examiner’s reasoning and rebut the applicant’s allegations. Therefore, the examiner is not convinced to remove the 103(a) rejection featuring Yoshioka IVO Akahane.
The applicant concludes on pages 7-8 by addressing claim 9 and opining that the claim is allowable at least by virtue of dependency. In this instance the examiner is not convinced that claim 6 is patentable for the foregoing reasons and therefore is not convinced by the argument for the same reasons addressed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael S Kellogg whose telephone number is (571)270-7278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-1pm.
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 at (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 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.
/MICHAEL S KELLOGG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798