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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed March 24, 2025. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 5-9, 13-14 and 19-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
The amendment to claim 5 is sufficient to overcome the 35 U.S.C § 112(b) from the previous Office action. That rejection is hereby withdrawn.
The claims as amended do not invoke claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C 112(f).
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the phrases “first wired communication circuit”, “second wired communication circuit”, WiFi communication circuit” and “Universal Serial Bus (USB) communication circuit” lacks proper antecedence in the specification as the specification uses the term module in relation to each phrase noted above, and would need to be amended accordingly, to provide antecedence basis for claim terminology.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 and 20 are each objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “second wireless” appears to be a typographical error and should be amended to “second wired” to be consistent with recitation of Universal Bus Serial(USB). Appropriate correction is required.
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 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, 4-9, 12-17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami WO 2022201655 A1 (for citations, refer to corresponding English version US 20230371926 A1) in view of Song et al., US 20190365352 A1 hereinafter “Song” in view of Waki JP 2006-171933 A (see attached machine language English translation for references) and in view of Cunningham et al. US 20070067734 A1 hereinafter “Cunningham”.
Regarding claim 1, Murakami discloses an ultrasound system ([abstract] Fig. 1 [0034] - wireless connection and Fig. 4 [0037] wired connection, [0045]) comprising an ultrasound device (“1” [0046]) comprising a first wired communication module (“T3” [0049]) and a first wireless communication module (“16” [0047]); and a processing device (“2”[0050]) comprising a second wired communication module (“T6”) and a second wireless communication module (“31” [0050]), the processing device is configured to pair with the ultrasound device over a wireless connection using the first and second wireless communication module, conduct an ultrasound imaging session over the wireless connection ([0074],[0092], Fig. 5, steps repeating through steps S1, S2, S4), determine that a cable has been connected between the ultrasound device and the processing device ([0091], Fig. 5 @S1), terminate wireless connection via the ultrasound device ([0045] switching between wired connection configuration in Fig. 4 to wireless connection configuration of Fig. 1, wireless connection is necessarily terminated, note also, [0091] wireless and wired connection are alternatives) and continue to conduct the ultrasound imaging session over the cable using the first and second wired communication modules ([0103], [0108-0109], Fig. 5 steps repeating through steps S1, S3, S4), the processing device of Murakami comprises a display screen (“33”), however, Murakami does not explicitly disclose indicating a wireless connection on the display screen in response to wireless pairing or indicate a wired connection on the display screen in response to determining that the cable is connected.
Song discloses that it was known in the prior art to indicate a connection status of an ultrasound device on a display of a processing device, as depicted in Fig. 9A, “920”, “930” and 9B, “921”, “931”, moreover, Song teaches in [0146] wherein the connection includes at least one of a wired connection and a wireless connection (i.e. Song encompasses an embodiment with both a wired and wireless connection).
Waki discloses that it was generally known in the prior art to display a connection status of wired and wireless connection devices ([abstract]) to enable a user to visually check the overall connection status in situations where peripheral devices can be connected in a wired and wireless manner ([0007]) in the same problem solving area of peripheral devices that can be connected via wired or wireless.
Cunningham in the same problem solving area of display of wired or wireless connection status based on a detected network state discloses a processing device configured such that “network connectivity information may be communicated via a single notifications area (e.g., system tray) icon, including by representing different images of the icon to display different types/states of connectivity and different types of media connections. For example, the icon may indicate whether Internet connectivity is present, and whether the connection is wired or wireless. The icon may regularly transition between at least two images to communicate different variables, e.g., types of connectivity and/or different types of media connections. The icon may be interactive to provide a tooltip, flyout and/or context menu related to the network state, and the icon may change in response to the networking state change event, e.g., be updated when a different capability connection is detected, when a different interface is detected, and/or when a wireless network with a different signal quality is detected” [abstract], [0008] and illustration Figs. 7-12, icon “886” being updated based on detected network state.
In view of the combined teachings of Song, Waki and Cunningham, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the processing device of Murakami to display a connection status of the ultrasonic device on the display, based on a detected network state, so as to enable a user to visually check the overall connection status of connection between the processing device and a connected ultrasound device in a case where the ultrasound device may be connected wirelessly or via wired connection.
Regarding claim 2, Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham discloses the system of claim 1 above, as modified by the teachings of Song in Figs. 9A and 9B, the wireless connection is indicated by a GUI icon displayed based on a strength of the wireless connection(see GUIs “920”, “930”, “921”, “931”).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami further discloses in [0105-0106] higher transmission voltage via wired connection under control of control unit 14, a command corresponding to higher transmission voltage is necessarily transmitted, to adjust setting of the ultrasound device consistent with higher transmission voltage.
Regarding claim 5, Murakami further discloses an input device 36 that is used to input command to the ultrasound device ([0083]), because the processing device and ultrasound device each comprises hardware for wireless communication, the processing device of Murakami can be described as being configured to transmit a command to the ultrasound device when the wireless connection is the input command will be transmitted during a wireless connection mode. Murakami does not explicitly disclose that the command comprises a request to shut down the ultrasound device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to include a command to shut down the ultrasound device via the input device of Murakami, so as to allow a user to terminate the ultrasound imaging session remotely, when desired.
Regarding claim 6, Murakami does not explicitly disclose that the ultrasound device is configured to turn on the first wireless communication module in response to a button being pressed on the ultrasound device, however, it is well known to include a button on an electronic device with a wireless communication module to turn on or turn off a wireless communication module. In view of this, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the ultrasound device of Murakami to include a button on the ultrasound device to turn on or off the wireless communication module, since doing so would allow a user to turn on or off the wireless communication module as desired.
Regarding claim 7, the first and second wireless communication module communicate via short-range wireless communication such as WiFi ([0054]).
Regarding claim 8, Murakami does not explicitly disclose the first and second wired communication modules are Universal Serial Bus (USB) communication modules, however, the use of a Universal Serial Bus as a communication link between an ultrasound probe and a processing device is well known in the art, as such, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a Universal Serial Bus communication module as the first and second wired communication modules, to perform the same function of transmitting ultrasound data between the ultrasound device and the processing device in Murakami.
Regarding claim 9, Murakami discloses an ultrasound system ([abstract] Fig. 1 [0034] - wireless connection and Fig. 4 [0037] wired connection, [0045]) comprising an ultrasound device (“1” [0046]) comprising a first wired communication module (“T3” [0049]) and a first wireless communication module (“16” [0047]); and a processing device (“2”[0050]) comprising a second wired communication module (“T6”) and a second wireless communication module (“31” [0050]), the processing device is configured to determine that a cable has been connected between the ultrasound device and the processing device ([0091], Fig. 5 @S1); conduct an ultrasound imaging session over the cable using the first wired communication module and the second wired communication module (Fig. 4, [0075], [0103], [0108-0109] and Fig. 5 steps repeating through steps S1, S3, S4); determine that the cable between the ultrasound device and the processing device has been disconnected ([0091-0092] and illustration Fig. 5, the process is repeated @ S4 as needed, as such, @ S1 “Y” indicates a wireless connection and is a result of no wired connection being detected); pair the ultrasound device over a wireless connection ([0091-0092] the wireless connection necessarily requires pairing); terminate the wired connection with the ultrasound device ([0045] switching between wireless connection configuration of Fig. 1 to wired connection configuration of Fig. 4, wireless connection is necessarily terminated, note also, [0091] wireless and wired connection are alternatives); and continue to conduct ultrasound imaging session over the wireless connection using the first wireless communication module and the second wireless communication module (see illustration Fig. 1 and Fig. 5 steps repeating through steps S1, S2, S4).
The processing device of Murakami comprises a display screen (“33”), however, Murakami does not explicitly disclose indicating a wireless connection on the display screen in response to wireless pairing or indicate a wired connection on the display screen in response to determining that the cable is connected.
Song discloses that it was known in the prior art to indicate a connection status of an ultrasound device on a display of a processing device, as depicted in Fig. 9A, “920”, “930” and 9B, “921”, “931”, moreover, Song teaches in [0146] wherein the connection includes a wired connection and a wireless connection, moreover, in the [abstract] Song teaches pairing of ultrasound probe with a diagnostic apparatus when a charging power supply is discontinued.
Waki discloses that it was generally known in the prior art to display a connection status of wired and wireless connection devices ([abstract]) to enable a user to visually check the overall connection status in situations where peripheral devices can be connected in a wired and wireless manner ([0007]) in the same problem solving area of peripheral devices that can be connected via wired or wireless.
Cunningham in the same problem solving area of display of wired or wireless connection status based on a detected network state discloses a processing device configured such that “network connectivity information may be communicated via a single notifications area (e.g., system tray) icon, including by representing different images of the icon to display different types/states of connectivity and different types of media connections. For example, the icon may indicate whether Internet connectivity is present, and whether the connection is wired or wireless. The icon may regularly transition between at least two images to communicate different variables, e.g., types of connectivity and/or different types of media connections. The icon may be interactive to provide a tooltip, flyout and/or context menu related to the network state, and the icon may change in response to the networking state change event, e.g., be updated when a different capability connection is detected, when a different interface is detected, and/or when a wireless network with a different signal quality is detected” [abstract], [0008] and illustration Figs. 7-12, icon “886” being updated based on detected network state.
In view of the combined teachings of Song, Waki and Cunningham, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the processing device of Murakami to display a wired connection or wireless connection status of the ultrasonic device on the display, so as to enable a user to visually check the overall connection status of connection between the processing device and a connected ultrasound device in a case where the ultrasound device may be connected wirelessly or via wired connection. Even in the even it is argued that wireless connection disclosed in Murakami does not necessarily include pairing, Song teaches that it was known to pair a wireless probe with an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus as pairing by definition is a network means a secure, trusted link between devices. In view of these, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have implemented a pairing for wireless connection in Murakami, as pairing was a known technique that would establish a secure and trusted link between the ultrasound probe and a processing device of Murakami.
Regarding claims 12 and 16, Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham discloses the system of claim 1 above, as modified by the teachings of Song in Figs. 9A and 9B, the wireless connection is indicated by a GUI icon displayed based on a strength of the wireless connection(see GUIs “920”, “930”, “921”, “931”).
Regarding claim 13, Murakami further discloses in [0105-0106] higher transmission voltage via wired connection under control of control unit 14, a command corresponding to higher transmission voltage is necessarily transmitted, to adjust setting of the ultrasound device consistent with higher transmission voltage.
Regarding claim 14, the processing device of Murakami can be described as configured to turn on (by providing power) to the second wireless communication module while the ultrasound imaging session, because in view of Fig. 1 or 4, the wireless communication circuit is connected to the main body control unit 35, that is powered by the apparatus main body.
Regarding claim 15, Murakami further discloses an input device 36 that is used to input command to the ultrasound device ([0083]), because the processing device and ultrasound device each comprises hardware for wireless communication, the processing device of Murakami can be described as being configured to transmit a command to the ultrasound device when the wireless connection is the input command will be transmitted during a wireless connection mode. Murakami does not explicitly disclose that the command comprises a request to shut down the ultrasound device. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention to include a command to shut down the ultrasound device via the input device of Murakami, so as to allow a user to terminate the ultrasound imaging session remotely, when desired.
Regarding claim 17, in modified Murakami, pairing does not involve a user input and in therefore automatically initiated by the processing device.
Regarding claim 19, the first and second wireless communication module communicate via short-range wireless communication such as WiFi ([0054]).
Regarding claim 20, Murakami does not explicitly disclose the first and second wired communication modules are Universal Serial Bus (USB) communication modules, however, the use of a Universal Serial Bus as a communication link between an ultrasound probe and a processing device is well known in the art, as such, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement a Universal Serial Bus communication module as the first and second wired communication modules, to perform the same function of transmitting ultrasound data between the ultrasound device and the processing device in Murakami.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sakai US 20210244385 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham discloses the invention of claim 1 as discussed above, but does not explicitly disclose establishing wireless connection using a matrix code that is scanned by a camera window in a graphical user interface of the processing device.
However, Sakai discloses in [0116] that communication access can be letter information such as SSID and password or coded information such as a two dimensional code “QR WiFi” including the SSID and password, wherein the two-dimensional code is displayed and an imager images the two dimensional code, that is decoded by a controller to obtain communication access information. In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the processing device of Murakami to scan a matrix code via a camera window, so as to establish wireless communication with the ultrasound device via quick access.
Claim 10-11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Song Waki and Cunningham as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Cho US 20160066893 A1.
Regarding claims 10-11, Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham as applied to claim 9 does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device is further configured to provide a prompt in a graphical user interface for a user, and wherein the prompt is configured to confirm whether to switch from a first wireless network to a second wireless network for communicating with the ultrasound device [claim 10] or wherein the processing device is further configured to switch automatically from a first wireless network to a second wireless network for communicating with the ultrasound device.
Cho discloses a processing device configured to provide a prompt in a graphical user interface for a user, and wherein the prompt is configured to confirm whether to switch from a first wireless network to a second wireless network for communicating with the ultrasound device based on intensity of a signal (see illustration Fig. 19 [0286-0288]) or the processing device is configured to switch automatically from a first wireless network to a second wireless network for communicating with the ultrasound device ([0362-0364] Figs 27-28 switching from a first network to second network based on an image quality is automatic). In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have further modified Murakami to include a prompt on the GUI, to allow a user to select a wireless network based on the type of data based on an intensity of the signal to be transmitted, or configure the processing device to switch from one network to another automatically, based on an image quality as taught by Cho, for efficient data transfer between the ultrasound probe and processing device.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Adachi et al. US 20220117578 A1 (“Adachi”).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami in view of Song, Waki and Cunningham as applied to claim 9 does not explicitly disclose wherein the processing device determines a least congested channel in a wireless network, and wherein pairing the ultrasound device with the processing device is performed using the least congested channel.
Adachi teaches when a plurality of wireless-communication-type ultrasonic diagnostic systems are used in a common space, connecting a terminal apparatus to an ultrasonic probe using a congested channel can slow down wireless communication and, in the worst case, can shut off wireless communication ([0023]), and that it is desired to connect an ultrasonic probe to vacant or non-congested channels ([0051]) and by connecting to a channel at which the number of ultrasonic probes is small, wireless communication between the ultrasonic probe and a terminal apparatus can be performed satisfactorily even when a plurality of ultrasonic diagnostic systems are used in a common space ([0060]). In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the processing device of Murakami to determine a least congested channel in a wireless network, and pair the ultrasound device with the processing device via the least congested channel as taught by Adachi, for a more satisfactory and efficient connection that is free from effects of a congested network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments to the prior art rejections of the previous Office action have been fully considered but are moot in light of new ground of rejection further view of newly discovered Cunningham that address the newly added limitations as detailed in the rejection section above.
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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 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 on (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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights