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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on December 8, 2025, December 31, 2025, and April 13, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 20, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant's argument on page 7 pertaining to “Paragraphs [0013] and [0016] of Ghosh are completely silent as to the use of a scanner and do not use any related concepts such as ultrasound or transducer. In fact, Ghosh uses the word "image" exactly one time in the entire document at paragraph [0001] which discloses "ECC is a basic cryptographic technique for internet of things (loT) devices to enable privacy identification or elliptic curve Diflie-Hellman protocols for secure communications as well as verification of signed images during secure boot." The "verification of signed images during secure boot" does not teach or suggest "ultrasound image data generated by said scanner" as recited in Applicant's claim 1 because Ghosh does not refer to an "image" in the way that the term is commonly used, but instead to a capture of data stored at a specific time on a hard drive or other non-volatile storage medium.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The “image” as recited in claim refers to digital data that needs to be secured. elliptic curve Diflie-Hellman protocol is used to secure any digital data and not only meant for image data. Ghosh discloses using elliptic curve Diflie-Hellman protocol to secure digital data (Ghosh, Fig. 1, ¶ 13 Diffie-Hellman ECC protocol).
In response to Applicant's argument on page 7 pertaining to “Further, Ghosh fails to teach or suggest the ''portable communication device" as recited in Applicant's claim 1. In contrast, Ghosh discloses to operate on altogether different media (i.e., a computer boot sector). As such, combination of Ghosh with the references of Zaslavsky and Cherry fails to teach or suggest the limitations of Applicant's claim 1, nor would it be obvious, to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to combine the references of Ghosh, Zaslavsky, and Cherry to obtain the limitations of Applicant's claim 1.”. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ghosh discloses a “portable communication device” (Ghosh, Fig. 1, ¶ 39 a tablet PC, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a mobile telephone). Zaslavsky is in the field of medical data. Cherry and Ghosh are in the field of data security. Medical data are required by law to be secured. It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art of medical data to look for how to secure the data. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to combine Zaslavsky and Cherry for the benefit of detecting malware on a subnet prior to the malware completely compromising the medical facility computer network (MFCN), and combine Zaslavsky in view of Cherry and Ghosh for the benefit of providing data security by dividing the data cryptography between hardware and software for area and energy savings.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry), and further in view of Ghosh (US 2017/0187530 A1) (herein after Ghosh).
Regarding Claim 1, Zaslavsky teaches, a system for acquiring ultrasound images of internal organs of a human body (Fig. 1, ultrasound system 100), comprising a scanner and at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) associated therewith (Fig. 1, ¶ 41 ultrasound device 114, motion and/or orientation sensor 109), and electronic components for wired or wireless communication (Fig. 1, ¶ 41 wired (e.g., through a lightning connector or a mini-USB connector) and/or wireless communication) with remote terminals (Fig. 1, processing device 102), —.
Zaslavsky fails to teach, — said system being secured against cyber-attacks by a portable communication device physically coupled with said scanner, said portable communication device configured to secure ultrasound image data generated by said scanner using Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol and/or Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm.
In analogous art, Cherry teaches, — said system being secured against cyber-attacks (Fig. 1, ¶ 32 medical device alert awareness system 114, to automatically block a malicious domain) by a portable communication device (Fig. 1, ¶ 25 implemented on a computer (e.g., the computer 300, as shown in FIG. 3); Fig. 3, ¶ 39 system 300, mobile clients) physically coupled with said scanner (Fig. 1, ¶ 17 wireless and/or wired wireless networks; Examiner interpretation: wired networks are physically coupled), —.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky by combining the system taught by Zaslavsky with a system wherein, said system being secured against cyber-attacks by a portable communication device physically coupled with said scanner; taught by Cherry for the benefit of detecting malware on a subnet prior to the malware completely compromising the medical facility computer network (MFCN) [Cherry: ¶ 22].
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry fail to disclose, — said portable communication device configured to secure ultrasound image data generated by said scanner using Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol and/or Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm.
In analogous art, Ghosh discloses, — said portable communication device configured to secure ultrasound image data generated by said scanner using Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol (Fig. 1, ¶ 13 Diffie-Hellman ECC protocol) and/or Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (Fig. 1, ¶ 16 elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) verification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry by combining the secure system taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry with a secure system comprising a portable communication device wherein, said portable communication device configured to secure image data generated by said scanner using Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol and/or Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm; taught by Ghosh for the benefit of providing data security by dividing the data cryptography between hardware and software for area and energy savings [Ghosh: ¶ 13].
Regarding Claim 2, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky and Ghosh fail to disclose, the system of claim 1, which includes a dedicated authentication and security hardware component
Cherry further teaches, the system of claim 1, which includes a dedicated authentication and security hardware component (Fig. 1, ¶ 10 authentication services such as an 802.1X supplicant).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the system taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a system which includes a dedicated authentication and security hardware component; taught by Cherry for the benefit of detecting malware on a subnet prior to the malware completely compromising the medical facility computer network (MFCN) [Cherry: ¶ 22].
Regarding Claim 3, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 2, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky and Ghosh fail to disclose, the system of claim 2, wherein the component is selected from among Microchip ATECC608A, Microchip ATECC508A, Atmel AT88SA1OHS/2S, STMicroelectronics STSAFA110S8SPL02, Maxim Integrated DS28C16Q+U, and the like.
Cherry further teaches, the system of claim 2, wherein the component is selected from among Microchip ATECC608A, Microchip ATECC508A, Atmel AT88SA1OHS/2S, STMicroelectronics STSAFA110S8SPL02, Maxim Integrated DS28C16Q+U, and the like (Fig. 3, processing unit 301; Note: Fig. 3 implements Fig. 1; see [0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the system taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a component wherein, the component is selected from among Microchip ATECC608A, Microchip ATECC508A, Atmel AT88SA1OHS/2S, STMicroelectronics STSAFA110S8SPL02, Maxim Integrated DS28C16Q+U, and the like; taught by Cherry for the benefit of detecting malware on a subnet prior to the malware completely compromising the medical facility computer network (MFCN) [Cherry: ¶ 22].
Regarding Claim 4, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 1, wherein the remote terminal is a portable communication device (Fig. 1, ¶ 46 the processing device 102 may be, a mobile smartphone).
Regarding Claim 5, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 4, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 4, wherein the portable communication device is selected from smartphones, tablet devices, laptops, and any other mobile device embodying processing capability (Fig. 1, ¶ 46 the processing device 102 may be, a mobile smartphone).
Regarding Claim 7, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the portable communication device comprises a display, the IMU, and a processor (Fig. 1, display screen 108 ¶ 39 features/capabilities provided may be used all together, or in any combination).
Regarding Claim 9, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the portable communication device is an integral part of a housing of the scanner (Fig. 1, ¶ 39 these embodiments and the features/capabilities provided may be used all together, or in any combination).
Regarding Claim 11, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the portable communication device is connected via a cable or wireless connection to the housing and only the housing is moved (Fig. 1, ¶ 46 operate the ultrasound device 114 with one hand and hold the processing device 102 with another hand).
Regarding Claim 12, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 7, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 7, wherein different combinations of one or more IMUs, processing devices and software, memory devices, power sources, and components of an AFE are located either within the housing or in the smartphone, or in both (Fig. 1, ¶ 39 these embodiments and the features/capabilities provided may be used individually, all together, or in any combination).
Regarding Claim 14, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 12, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 12, wherein the processor is configured to receive data collected by all sensors (Fig. 1, ¶ 44 the processing may be performed by, for example, the processor 110.).
Regarding Claim 15, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 1, adapted to perform a task of computing a navigation, including the scanner's location, orientation, and time derivatives of them (Fig. 2, ¶ 48 particular location, ¶ 43 orientation, ¶ 37 specified period of time), said task being carried out by an Inertial Navigation System (INS) comprising a set of three-axis gyroscopes and three-axis accelerometers in the IMU and other sensors (Fig. 1, ¶ 43 accelerometer, a gyroscope); a processor; and software, which is configured to take initial conditions and calibration data and a output from the IMU and other sensors to compute the Navigation (Fig. 1, ¶ 80 initial orientation relative to gravity using motion and/or orientation data).
Regarding Claim 18, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 15, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 15. wherein the INS is adapted to provide one or more of the following types of data: a. angles of orientation; b. speed of the scanner; and f. location (Fig. 7, ¶ 79 translate and/or rotate and/or tilt ; Note: Fig 7 is a process performed by apparatus of Fig 1, see ¶ 50) of the ultrasound probe relative to the body's anatomy.
Regarding Claim 20, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 18. wherein the speed of the scan is calculated from an angular velocity assuming motion perpendicular to a surface of the body (Fig. 1, ¶ 43 data regarding angular velocity, motion and/or orientation data).
Regarding Claim 25, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky further teaches, the system of claim 1, wherein the electronic components for wired or wireless communication with remote terminals is selected from one or more of USB, Lightning, fiber optic, Wi-Fi, UWB. Bluetooth and IR (Fig. 1, ¶ 41 wired (e.g., through a lightning connector or a mini-USB connector) and/or wireless communication).
Claim(s) 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry), in view of Ghosh (US 2017/0187530 A1) (herein after Ghosh), and further in view of SONNENSCHEIN (US 2018/0014811 A1) (herein after Sonnenschein).
Regarding Claim 8, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 5, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh fail to teach, the system of claim 5, wherein the portable communication device fits into a socket in a housing of the scanner.
In analogous art, Sonnenschein teaches, the system of claim 5, wherein the portable communication device fits into a socket (Fig. 1, cavity 101) in a housing of the scanner.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a scanner, wherein the portable communication device fits into a socket in the housing of the scanner; taught by Sonnenschein for the benefit of implementing a simple system of acquiring ultrasound images by a person who is not a healthcare specialist [Sonnenschein: ¶ 9].
Regarding Claim 17, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 15, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh fail to teach, the system of claim 15, which is configured to generate accurate scans of ultrasound signals on skin and to ensure good value images for diagnostic purposes by using a combination of a pressure sensor and IMU and selecting only images that meet optimal values of speed of scanning and pressure of the scanner against the skin.
In analogous art, Sonnenschein teaches, the system of claim 15, which is configured to generate accurate scans of ultrasound signals on the skin and to ensure good value images (Fig. 2, ¶ 132 the final image) for diagnostic purposes by using a combination of a pressure sensor and IMU (Fig. 2, ¶ 120 ultrasound transducer 103, generate pressure waves) and selecting only images that meet optimal values of the speed of scanning and pressure of the scanner against the skin (Fig. 2, ¶ 132 scan lines are assembled, interpolated, and filtered to form the final image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a scanner, which is configured to generate accurate scans of ultrasound signals on the skin and to ensure good value images for diagnostic purposes by using a combination of a pressure sensor and IMU and selecting only images that meet optimal values of the speed of scanning and pressure of the scanner against the skin; taught by Sonnenschein for the benefit of implementing a simple system of acquiring ultrasound images by a person who is not a healthcare specialist [Sonnenschein: ¶ 9].
Claim(s) 21, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry), in view of Ghosh (US 2017/0187530 A1) (herein after Ghosh), and further in view of Hayes-Gill et al (US 7,532,923 B1) (herein after Hayes).
Regarding Claim 21, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh fail to teach, the system of claim 18, wherein, for prenatal exams, the body is modeled as a sphere, whose radius can be approximated by one or more of a patient's BMI, a stage of pregnancy, or a visual estimate.
In analogous art, Hayes teaches, the system of claim 18, wherein, for prenatal exams, the body is modeled as a sphere (Fig. 2. Col. 3. Ln. 6 a sphere of diameter typically 50 cm), whose radius can be approximated by one or more of the patient's BMI, the stage of the pregnancy, or a visual estimate (Fig. 2. Col. 3. Ln. 5-6 the mother's abdomen during pregnancy can be considered as a sphere of diameter typically 50 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a scanner wherein, for prenatal exams, the body is modeled as a sphere, whose radius can be approximated by one or more of the patient's BMI, the stage of the pregnancy, or a visual estimate; taught by Hayes for the benefit of determining the position of a fetus using a non-invasive procedure [Hayes: Col. 5, Ln. 42-45].
Regarding Claim 22, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh in view of Hayes teach the limitations of claim 21, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh fail to teach, the system of claim 21, wherein the radius is in a range of 20 cm up to 70 cm for obese patients.
Hayes further teaches, the system of claim 21, wherein the radius is in a range of 20 cm up to 70 cm for obese patients (Fig. 2. Col. 3. Ln. 5-6 the mother's abdomen during pregnancy can be considered as a sphere of diameter typically 50 cm).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh in view of Hayes by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh in view of Hayes with a scanner wherein, the radius is in the range of 20 cm up to 70 cm for obese patients; taught by Hayes for the benefit of determining the position of a fetus using a non-invasive procedure [Hayes: Col. 5, Ln. 42-45].
Claim(s) 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry), in view of Ghosh (US 2017/0187530 A1) (herein after Ghosh), and further in view of MESSAS et al (US 2018/0064412 A1) (herein after Messas).
Regarding Claim 24, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 18, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh fail to teach, the system of claim 18, wherein the speed of the scan is between 1 mm per second and several centimeters per second.
In analogous art, Messas teaches, the system of claim 18, wherein the speed of the scan is between 1 mm per second and several centimeters per second (Fig. 4, ¶ 175 The predefined travelling speed may be comprised between 0.1 mm/s and 10 mm/s, preferably of the order of 1 mm/s).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a scanner wherein, the speed of the scan is between 1 mm per second and several centimeters per second; taught by Messas for the benefit of imaging critical body parts non-invasively [Messas: ¶ 256 ].
Claim(s) 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry), in view of Ghosh (US 2017/0187530 A1) (herein after Ghosh), and further in view of EGGERS et al (US 2016/0100821 A1) (herein after Eggers).
Regarding Claim 26, Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh teach the limitations of claim 1, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh fail to teach, the system of claim 1, comprising an IMU-independent component adapted to alert a user in case of insufficient coupling between the system and the body, or if the scanning speed is too fast.
In analogous art, Eggers teaches, the system of claim 1, comprising an IMU-independent component adapted to alert a user (Fig. 2, ¶ 259 operator is alerted) in case of insufficient coupling between the system and the body, or if the scanning speed is too fast (Fig. 2, ¶ 259 a rate of translation and/or rotation that was too fast to meet pixel density).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky in view of Cherry in view of Ghosh with a scanner comprising, an IMU-independent component adapted to alert the user in case of insufficient coupling between the apparatus and the body, or if the scanning speed is too fast; taught by Eggers for the benefit of scanning a body part while showing paths of completed scan sequences and where re-scanning is required [Eggers: ¶ 111].
Claim(s) 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of SONNENSCHEIN (US 2018/0014811 A1) (herein after Sonnenschein) and further in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry).
Regarding Claim 29, Zaslavsky teaches, 29. (New) A system for acquiring ultrasound images of internal organs of a human body (Fig. 1, ultrasound system 100), comprising: — at least one inertial measurement unit (IMU) (Fig. 1, ¶ 41 ultrasound device 114, motion and/or orientation sensor 109) in said portable communication device; wherein said portable communication device provides a channel of communication (Fig. 1, ¶ 41 wired (e.g., through a lightning connector or a mini-USB connector) and/or wireless communication) for communication with remote terminals —
Zaslavsky fails to teach, — comprising: a scanner having a socket sized to engage and retain a portable communication device in direct engagement with a connector located in said socket; — and transmission of ultrasound image data and secures the system against cyber-attacks.
In analogous art, Sonnenschein teaches, — comprising: a scanner having a socket (Fig. 1, cavity 101) sized to engage and retain a portable communication device (Fig. 1, a smart device 104) in direct engagement with a connector located in said socket; —.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky by combining the scanner taught by Zaslavsky with a scanner comprising: a scanner having a socket sized to engage and retain a portable communication device in direct engagement with a connector located in said socket; taught by Sonnenschein for the benefit of implementing a simple system of acquiring ultrasound images by a person who is not a healthcare specialist [Sonnenschein: ¶ 9].
Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein fail to teach, — and transmission of ultrasound image data and secures the system against cyber-attacks.
In analogous art, Cherry teaches, — and transmission of ultrasound image data and secures the system against cyber-attacks (Fig. 1, ¶ 32 medical device alert awareness system 114, to automatically block a malicious domain).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein by combining the system taught by Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein with a system wherein, said system being secured against cyber-attacks by a portable communication device physically coupled with said scanner; taught by Cherry for the benefit of detecting malware on a subnet prior to the malware completely compromising the medical facility computer network (MFCN) [Cherry: ¶ 22].
Claim(s) 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zaslavsky (US 2020/0069291 A1) (herein after Zaslavsky) in view of SONNENSCHEIN (US 2018/0014811 A1) (herein after Sonnenschein) in view of Cherry (US 2019/0190952 A1) (herein after Cherry) and further in view of Ghosh (US 2017/0187530 A1) (herein after Ghosh).
Regarding Claim 28, Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein in view of Cherry disclose the limitations of claim 29, which this claim depends on.
Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein in view of Cherry fail to teach, 28. (Currently Amended) The system of claim 29 wherein said portable communication device is configured to secure image data generated by said scanner using at least one member of the group consisting of Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm.
In analogous art, Ghosh teaches, the system of claim 29 wherein said portable communication device is configured to secure image data generated by said scanner using at least one member of the group consisting of Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol (Fig. 1, ¶ 13 Diffie-Hellman ECC protocol) and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (Fig. 1, ¶ 16 elliptic curve digital signature algorithm (ECDSA) verification).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein in view of Cherry by combining the secure system taught by Zaslavsky in view of Sonnenschein in view of Cherry with a secure system comprising a portable communication device wherein, said portable communication device is configured to secure image data generated by said scanner using both Elliptic Curve Diffie Hellman security protocol and Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm; taught by Ghosh for the benefit of providing data security by dividing the data cryptography between hardware and software for area and energy savings [Ghosh: ¶ 13].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mammone (US 2013/0023767 A1) teaches, a system for acquiring ultrasound images of internal organs of a human body (Fig. 1, ultrasound probe 100).
Zoghbi (US 2013/0158363 A1) a system for acquiring ultrasound images of internal organs of a human body (Fig. 4, ¶ 79 wand 15 comprises a microphone 95 for acquiring sound information from the patient).
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 JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO whose telephone number is (469)295-9276. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 A to 5:00 P CT.
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, EMAN ALFAKAWI can be reached at 571-272-4448. 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.
/JOSEPH O. NYAMOGO/
Examiner
Art Unit 2858
/FARHANA A HOQUE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights