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
The elected claims are claims 1-2, 4, 7, & 9-10. The withdrawn claims are claims 3, 5-6, 8, & 11-20. Although the current claim set indicates claim 3 as being original and claim 4 as being withdrawn, claim 3 will not be examined and claim 4 will be examined, consistent with the original election.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendments to the independent claims, previously-found reference of Hisanaga has been maintained. Hisanaga, in [0028]-[0029], teaches that the surgeon can operate a freeze button or save button on the operation unit to freeze, display, and store images from the ultrasound probe and head-mounted display. These functions comprise controlling the ultrasound probe and head-mounted display.
Because the claims are not placed in condition for allowance, the rejoinder is denied.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanaga (JP 2011/183056, citations according to attached translation) in view of Jin (US 2019/0008486) and Hershey (US 2014/0171797).
Regarding claim 1, Hisanaga teaches an ultrasound system comprising:
an ultrasound probe (ultrasonic probe 10, [0015]);
a head-mounted display (head mounted display (HMD) 11, [0015]); and
an external apparatus (ultrasonic observation device 12, [0015]), wherein the ultrasound probe includes a transducer array (ultrasonic transducer (UT) array 27, [0016]), a transmission and reception circuit (transmitter/receiver 53, [0023]) configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave from the transducer array ([0023]) and generate a sound ray signal based on a reception signal acquired by the transducer array ([0024]), a first processor (processing unit 54, [0024]) configured to generate an ultrasound image based on the sound ray signal generated by the transmission and reception circuit ([0024]), and wirelessly transmit ([0046]) ultrasound data ([0024]), the head-mounted display includes a camera unit (CCD 39, [0018]) that acquires a view image (hand image, [0020]) by imaging a scanning point of the ultrasound probe in a subject ([0018]), and a second processor (storage portion 41, [0019]) configured to wirelessly transmit ([0046]) the view image acquired by the camera unit ([0035]), and the external apparatus includes an external monitor (monitor 16, [0015]), and a third processor (main control unit 50, [0021] & display control unit 55, [0025]) configured to wirelessly communicate ([0046]) with at least the head-mounted display ([0035]), display the ultrasound image and the view image synchronized with each other on the external monitor ([0025]), and control the ultrasound probe and the head-mounted display based on an indication of a user of the external apparatus input to the external apparatus ([0028]-[0029]).
However, Hisanaga fails to disclose wirelessly transmitting the ultrasound image.
Jin teaches wirelessly transmitting the ultrasound image ([0061]-[0062], Figure 2).
Per the rejection under Hisanaga, the transmitter/receiver 53 and processing unit 54 are considered part of the ultrasound probe, despite being contained within the processor unit 15, which is physically separate from the probe. Paragraph [0046] teaches that the probe may be adapted for wireless communication. In this case, because the image processor (processing unit 54) is located in the processor unit 15, ultrasound data would be wirelessly transmitted to the external apparatus, not an ultrasound image. Paragraph [0058] & Figure 2 of Jin teach that the image processor 120 and communicator 130 or contained within a wireless ultrasound probe 100. Thus, if these parts were included within the probe of Hisanaga, the combined device would be adapted to wirelessly transmit an ultrasound image, as is taught in [0061]-[0062] of Jin.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Hisanaga to include wireless transmission of the ultrasound image, as taught by Jin. Having the image be processed within the probe, and not the external apparatus, reduces the computational strain of the external apparatus.
However, Hisanaga in view of Jin fail to disclose: synchronizing the ultrasound image and the view image captured at the same timing with each other by referring to a time stamp of the ultrasound image and a time stamp of the view image.
Hershey teaches:
synchronizing the ultrasound image and the view image captured at the same timing with each other by referring to a time stamp of the ultrasound image and a time stamp of the view image ([0041]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hisanaga and Jin to include: synchronizing the ultrasound image and the view image captured at the same timing with each other by referring to a time stamp of the ultrasound image and a time stamp of the view image, as taught by Hershey. Synchronizing the images using time stamps allows the ultrasound and view images to be correlated with each other when being displayed, so that the user can associate an ultrasound image with the position of the probe when it was captured.
Regarding claim 2, Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey teach the ultrasound system according to claim 1, and Hisanaga further teaches that the third processor of the external apparatus is further configured to wirelessly communicate with both the ultrasound probe and the head-mounted display ([0046]), and the ultrasound probe is further configured to wirelessly transmit ultrasound data to both the head-mounted display and the external apparatus ([0046]).
Jin teaches that the first processor of the ultrasound probe is configured to wirelessly transmit the ultrasound image ([0061]-[0062]).
Regarding claim 4, Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey teach the ultrasound system according to claim 2, and Hisanaga further teaches that the head-mounted display includes a head-mounted display-side monitor (lens unit 35, [0017]), and a second processor of the head-mounted display is further configured to display the ultrasound image on the head-mounted display-side monitor ([0017]).
Regarding claim 7, Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey teach the ultrasound system according to claim 4, and Hisanaga further teaches that the external apparatus includes an input device (operation unit 17, [0022]), the third processor of the external apparatus is further configured to transmit external input information input through the external device ([0022], [0029], & [0037]), to the head-mounted display ([0045]), and the second processor of the head-mounted display is further configured to display the external input information on the head-mounted display-side monitor ([0045]).
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Lee (US 2019/0038260).
Regarding claim 9, Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey teach the ultrasound system according to claim 1.
However, Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey fail to disclose that the second processor of the head-mounted display and the third processor of the external apparatus are further configured to perform wireless communication of voice data between each other in two directions.
Lee teaches that the second processor (wireless communication unit 610, [0143]) of the head-mounted display (electronic device 400, [0143] & [0060]) and the third processor (wireless communication unit 610, [0175]) of the external apparatus (electronic device 500, [0143] & [0060]) are further configured to perform wireless communication of voice data between each other in two directions (voice call, [0224]).
Per [0143] & [0175], the electronic devices 400 & 500 are identical devices comprising identical components. Thus, one of the devices can be the head-mounted device described in [0060], while the other can be any of the other devices described in [0060].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system taught by Hisanaga, Jin, and Hershey such that the second processor of the head-mounted display in the third processor of the external apparatus are further configured to perform wireless communication of voice data between each other in two directions, as taught by Lee. If the external apparatus is located in a different room than the head-mounted display, facilitating a voice call between the two devices allows the person analyzing the images at the external apparatus to provide instructions to the operator capturing the images with the probe.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hisanaga in view of Jin, Hershey, and Panse (US 2020/0105068).
Claim 21 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
However, Hisanaga in view of Jin and Hershey fail to disclose displaying a cursor being movable by an observer of the external apparatus on the external monitor with superimposing on the view image, wherein the second processor of the head-mounted display is configured to display the cursor being displayed on the external monitor, on the head-mounted monitor with superimposing on the view image.
Panse teaches displaying a cursor (cursor, [0152]) being movable by an observer ([0109]) of the external apparatus on the external monitor (centralized computer 390, [0152]) with superimposing on the view image ([0152]), wherein the second processor of the head-mounted ([0049]) display (augmented reality display devices #1 1600A, #2 1600B, #3 1600C, or #4 1600D, [0152]) is configured to display the cursor being display on the external monitor ([0152]), on the head-mounted display with superimposing on the view image ([0152]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Hisanaga, Jin, and Hershey to include displaying a cursor being movable by an observer of the external apparatus on the external monitor with superimposing on the view image, wherein the second processor of the head-mounted display is configured to display the cursor being displayed on the external monitor, on the head-mounted monitor with superimposing on the view image, as taught by Panse. This allows the operator controlling the external apparatus to provide guidance and visual indications to the operator wearing the head-mounted display.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights