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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites “a digitizing ASIC” and the examiner recommend amending to ASIC to fully recite application specific integrated circuit in a first recitation of the limitation, such as, “Application Specification Integrated Circuit (ASIC).” 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.
Claims 1-10 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 7 recites “an ultrasound transducer array” and “a digitizing ASIC” and it is not definite whether it is new and different from recited “an ultrasound transducer array” and “a digitizing ASIC” in claim 1 or refers to same.
Claim 8 is rejected as it inherits the rejection of claim 7 as set forth above.
Claim 9 recites “an interface unit” and it is not definite whether it is new and different from recited “an remote interface unit” in claim 1 or refers to same.
Claim 10 is rejected as it inherits the rejection of claim 9 as set forth above.
Claim limitation “a controller” and “a master controller” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification is devoid of adequate structure to perform the claimed function. In particular, the specification merely states that the controller and master controller configured to change or control. There is no disclosure of any particular structure, such as a processor or CPU performing the function of the controller. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structure performs the claimed function.
Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as they inherit rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of a controller. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-10 are rejected as they inherit rejection of claim 1 as set forth above.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a controller” and “user interface” in claims 1-10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With regards to “an interface unit,” the examiner found following structures in the specification:
[0056] Another aspect of the invention is an interface unit for an ultrasound system, the interface unit being adapted to be coupled to at least one ultrasound scanning unit, in particular the ultrasound scanning unit described herein, wherein the interface unit comprises the master controller described herein. The interface unit may for example be a separate unit, or may be part of a system, such as a tablet, a smartphone, a PDA, or a general purpose PC, or may be part of a cart-based US system. A separate interface unit may comprise a power management unit (PMU) and a battery. The connection between the interface unit and the system may be wireless or via a data cable. All the advantages and features of the digitizing ASIC, the ultrasound scanning unit, and the master controller also apply for the interface unit and vice versa.
Therefore, for a purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret “interface unit” as a tablet, a smartphone, a PDA, or a general purpose PC and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Blalock et al.,” US 2015/0038844 (hereinafter Blalock), “Hwang et al.,” US 6,416,745 (hereinafter Hwang), and “Price,” US 2022/0361810 (hereinafter Price, foreign filing date 10/25/2019).
Regarding to claim 1, Blalock teaches a digitizing ASIC (application specific integrated circuit [0030]) for an ultrasound scanning unit (ultrasound imaging system [0031]) of an ultrasound system, comprising:
an array of analogue-to-digital converters (an analog-to-digital converter, ADC implemented in every channel [0076]) adapted to receive ultrasound signals acquired with an ultrasound transducer array (transducer array [0031]) and to convert the ultrasound signals into digitized ultrasound data (converting the acoustic signals received to digitized electrical signals [0031]);
a memory module (digital memory [0076]) operably coupled to the array of analogue-to-digital converters (ADC and digital memory [0076]) and adapted to store the digitized ultrasound data (memory storing data [0068], digital memory would store digitized data as claimed)
a controller adapted to receive control signals from the interface unit (control of transmission of ultrasound energy interface [0080]), and, responsive to the control signals, configure the operation of components of the ASIC and/or the ultrasound scanning unit (control transmission of ultrasound energy from the transducer array [0079] ) by setting operation parameters (sampling time, number of samples, channel gains and instructions to the data capture software via the interface software [0080])
Blalock further teaches ADCs on chip ([0014]) are controlled wherein ADCs include on-chip memory and related logic for processing instructions and algorithms ([0020]) and transmit/receive hardware to communicate (510 Figure 1A [0081]).
Blalock does not further disclose details of controller and transmitter as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging system, Hwang teaches an ultrasound system comprising:
a transmitter, operably coupled to the memory module and adapted to transfer the digitized ultrasound data stored in the memory module to a remote interface unit (data port configured as a transmitter or interface, allowing communicating with other units and interface connect to communication link to transmit and receive ultrasound information from remote locations Col.3 lines 11-30, transmit image information remotely Col. 8 lines 36-47); and
a controller adapted to receive control signals from the interface unit (RISC processor coupled to a user controls of the unit to accept user inputs to direct and control the operation of the hand-held ultrasound system, Col. 3 lines 28-30), and, responsive to the control signals, configure the operation of components of the ASIC and/or the ultrasound scanning unit (digital signal processing ASIC ) by setting operation parameters (RISC processor coupled to a user controls of the unit to accept user inputs to direct and control the operation of the hand-held ultrasound system Col. 3 lines 28-30)
wherein the controller is adapted to change operation parameters of the ASIC and/or the ultrasound scanning unit (RISC processor is coupled to front end and digital signal processing ASIC to control and synchronize the processing Col. 3 lines 11-18) during an insonification cycle and/or from one insonification cycle to the next (user controls enable the user to turn the unit on and off, select operating characteristics such as mode, color Doppler sector or frame rate and special functions Col. 3 lines 39-46),
wherein the controller is adapted to control a selection and/or processing of the digitized ultrasound data, wherein the selection and/or processing may include one or more of the following:
compressing digitized ultrasound data (compression circuit 428 Col. 5 lines 50-52);
subsampling of digitized ultrasound data;
combining digitized ultrasound data from several transducer elements and/or from different signal channels and/or from different insonification cycles, in particular by weighted summation (scanlines multiplied by coefficients and accumulated Col. 4 lines 54-Col. 5 lines 6; two pulse transmissions, apertures are formed and samples are combined by adder, Col. 5 lines 34-45);
adjusting word width;
adjusting digital gain;
signal clipping;
re-interpolation of digitized ultrasound data; and
filtering and decimation (decimation band pass filtering Col. 5 lines 1-28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasound imaging system as taught by Blalock to incorporate teaching of Hwang, since (1) transmitting data remotely and (2) controlling image acquisition and image processing via user interface was well known in the art as taught by Hwang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Blalock with no change in their respective functions, configuring its transmit/receive interface to be a transmitter, and configuring a controller to control operation of the ASIC and ultrasound scanning, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to transmit data remotely (Col. 8 lines 38-41) and processor operation under user control for processing and operate system for specific diagnostic apparatus (Col. 8 lines 45-63), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Although, Blalock and Hwang both disclose transmitter and receiver, they do not disclose transceiver. The examiner submits that using a transceiver to perform transmit and receive signals are well known in interface and communication systems. The examiner submits “Price,” that teaches wearable device with plurality of units wherein each unit comprises a processor, memory and others including digital signal processor and interface network communications integrated on chip with transceiver or transmitter and receiver ([0092]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute transmitter and receiver as taught by Blalock and Hwang with transceiver , since transmitter and receiver or transceiver was well known in the art as taught by Price. The substitution would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide transfer of the data using shaped transceiver in a chip ([0110]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 7, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Blalock teaches comprising an ultrasound transducer array ([0027]) and a digitizing ASIC ([0076]).
Regarding to claim 9, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above.
Blalock teaches a master controller (CPU coupled to an interface connecting to custom front end device [0068]-[0069]) for an interface unit of an ultrasound system (user selectable custom software to be activated, selecting imaging setting [0088] Figure 4), the interface unit being adapted to be coupled to at least one ultrasound scanning unit, in particular to at least one ultrasound scanning unit according to claim 7 (interface software allows for transfer of commands from the mobile device software to the front end to properly configure front end hardware for transmission of ultrasound [0081]), wherein the master controller comprises or is part of a data processing unit and is configured to dynamically generate and send control signals for controlling a digitizing ASIC of the at least one ultrasound scanning unit based on digitized ultrasound data received from said at least one ultrasound scanning unit by the interface unit and/or data produced by the interface unit from digitized ultrasound data received from said at least one ultrasound scanning unit ( data capturing software resides on data capture hardware and serves to properly configure the front end ASICs for accurately sampling data, wherein custom software passes ultrasound receive parameters and instructions to the data capture software and translated into the specific signaling and low level interactions with front end circuits to implemented functions [0080]; Figure 4 shows feedback of 418 into step 406, which reads on claimed “dynamically generate and control signals for controlling front end ASICs scanning unit based on ultrasound data received, Figure 4 [0088]-[0089]).
Regarding to claim 10, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 9 as set forth above.
Blalock further teaches “real time” system that acquire and access data fast enough to enable control of the source of the data, that real-time imaging enables the user to see images from a particular transducer position and orientation quickly enough that the user can user that information immediately to reposition the transducer ([0065]), thus reads on claimed “wherein the master controller is configured to generate and send control signals related to a next insonification cycle during data collection of a current insonification cycle.”
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock, Hwang and Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Savord,” US 2019/0247019 (hereinafter Savord).
Regarding to claims 2-3, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Blalock, Hwang and Price do not further teach wherein the controller is adapted to change one or more of the following operation parameters of the analogue-to-digital converters during an insonification cycle and/or from one insonification cycle to the next: the operation parameters of an analogue front-end of the analogue-to-digital converters, in particular an amplification and/or a filter of the analogue input signals; a selection of active analogue-to-digital converters; a sampling frequency; a resolution of the analogue-to-digital converters, in particular a variation in resolution during one insonification cycle; and acquisition delays and/or and acquisition duration and controller selecting portions of the data to be stored in the memory module.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging system, Savord teaches wherein the controller is adapted to change one or more of the following operation parameters of the analogue-to-digital converters during an insonification cycle and/or from one insonification cycle to the next: the operation parameters of an analogue front-end of the analogue-to-digital converters, in particular an amplification and/or a filter of the analogue input signals; a selection of active analogue-to-digital converters; a sampling frequency; a resolution of the analogue-to-digital converters, in particular a variation in resolution during one insonification cycle; and acquisition delays and/or and acquisition duration (four digital ASICs each channel digitizes analog signal and forms digital signals, each digital sample is delayed by eight selectable delay increments, each digital ASIC contain control registers to set parameters of digital conversion and beaformation process, such as sampling time and delay values [0027]).
Savord further teaches limitation of claim 3, wherein the controller is adapted to, responsive to the control signals, select portions of the digitized ultrasound data to be stored in the memory module, and/or to select portions of the digitized ultrasound data stored in the memory module that are to be transferred to the interface unit (ASICs control information for ultrasonic transmission and receive beam formation and stores data in a RAM, RAM stores control data for anticipated scanning mode and RAM is coupled to a write address controller to write digital data into the RAM [0021]; Based on user selection via user interface, access the data from RAM memory for a desired transmit/receive sequence and controls parameters of transmission [0024]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasound imaging system as taught by Blalock to incorporate teaching of Savord, since (1) changing operation parameters of the ADC and the specific details of the parameters and (2) user selection of the data to be transferred or processed via memory module with address was well known in the art as taught by Savord. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Blalock with no change in their respective functions, configuring its ASIC to control, and change parameters of ADC, for ultrasound scanning, and using RAM with address controller, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide (1) fast imaging aperture switching operation ([0076]) and (2) user selectable access and storing data in memory ([0024]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock, Hwang and Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Ossman,” US 10,778,228 (hereinafter Ossman).
Regarding to claim 4, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Blalock, Hwang and Price do not further teach wherein the digitizing ASIC is adapted to consecutively apply multiple control modes, each control mode, comprising a set of operation parameters, wherein the next control mode, is activated after a predetermined time or due to detection of an internal or external trigger event.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ASICs, Ossman teaches that data pipelines of an FPGA, including logic circuitry to perform a plurality of operations, selection circuitry, and an ASIC architecture including a plurality of circuit blocks, each performing one or more associated predetermined operations or functions on the data, including an interconnect network to facilitate configuration or control of order, number and type of data processing operations (Figures 5A-5F), notably the one or more circuit blocks of the ASIC perform predetermined process and operations, and selection circuitry provides configurable or controllable data flow with the ASIC and/or between the FPGA and the ASIC controls the order, number and type of data processing operations, wherein the order, number and type of operations can be changed (Col. 3 line 55- Col. 4 line 20). Ossman further teaches reconfiguring the order can be programmed and reconfigured in any time, in situ (Col. 1 lines 15-42).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasound imaging system as taught by Blalock to incorporate teaching of Ossman since reconfigurable ASICs to perform data processing was well known in the art as taught by Ossman. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Blalock with no change in their respective functions, program and re-program the order, number and type of ASICs in situ (Col. 2 lines 54-Col. 3 line 4), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to facilitate modification of the order of ASICs (Col. 1 lines 15-42) and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock, Hwang and Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Chen et al.,” US 2015/0087991 (hereinafter Chen).
Regarding to claim 5, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Blalock, Hwang and Price do not further teach register banks.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging system, Chen teaches wherein the digitizing ASIC comprises at least two register banks (two banks [0072]), wherein the at least two register banks are configured to store operation parameters, wherein the digitizing ASIC is adapted to apply operation parameters of a first register bank , in particular during a current insonification cycle, while overwriting operation parameters of a second register bank for use during a next insonification cycle and/or data processing (ASIC architecture include two banks, in which implementations are alternatingly selected using control signal [0072]; each control set has two multiplexed using register banks to allow operation based on one bank while reprogramming the other [0076]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasound imaging system as taught by Blalock to incorporate teaching of Chen, since ASIC with two register banks was well known in the art as taught by Chen. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Blalock with no change in their respective functions, configuring its ASIC to control, alternate between two pre-programmed shift register banks, for ultrasound scanning, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide fast imaging aperture switching operation ([0076]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock, Hwang and Price as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Wang,” US 2022/0175349 (hereinafter Wang).
Regarding to claim 6, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Blalock, Hwang and Price do not further teach a first and a second clock domain.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound imaging system, Wang teaches wherein the memory module and the array of analogue-to-digital converters are clocked from a first clock domain and the transceiver is clocked from a second clock domain (PCIe bus to receive and send data between frontend module and CPU and analog control system receive configuration of imaging module and CPU, send data back to CPU memory through PCIe bus, analogy control and the PCIe control use separate clock domains using common buffer [0038] Figure 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasound imaging system as taught by Blalock to incorporate teaching of Wang, since common buffer with separate clock domains was well known in the art as taught by Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Blalock with no change in their respective functions, using common buffer with first and second clock domains, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to use common buffer to store and send data ([0038]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Blalock, Hwang and Price as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Shepard et al.,” US 2021/0267574 (hereinafter Shepard).
Regarding to claim 8, Blalock, Hwang and Price together teach all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above.
Blalock, Hwang and Price do not further teach wherein components of the ultrasound scanning unit, in particular the ultrasound transducer array, an analogue ASIC and/or the digitizing ASIC, are arranged on a wearable patch.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor ultrasound imaging system, Shepard teaches ultrasound apparatus wherein ultrasound transducer elements, ASIC are arranged in wearable patch ([0029] Figure 2C, [0039]-[0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ultrasound imaging system as taught by Blalock to incorporate teaching of Shepard, since wearable patch ultrasound and ASIC was well known in the art as taught by Shepard. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Blalock with no change in their respective functions configuring its ultrasound transducer and ASIC to be in wearable patch for ultrasound scanning, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to facilitate a safer and more comfortable monitoring of the patient ([0005]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 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, 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights