DETAILED ACTION
Non-Final Rejection
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 07/12/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-8, 10-12 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand (US 20200000435 A1) in view of Beaty (US 20170089868 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Anand teaches a method of operating a remote evaluation system to determine an operation state of an acoustic transducer (exercising transducer operation separately from the ultrasound system to detect transducer failure or levels of transducer performance that fail to meet operating standards), the remote evaluation system being remote from a testing device (test transducer elements remotely using the downloaded test pattern and characterize transducer performance), the method comprising operating the remote evaluation system to: receive (S620), via a network from the testing device, a test response signal received from the acoustic transducer in response to a test signal generated by the testing device (emitted signal can be an acoustic signal that is emitted from a single transducer element or from a pair, bank, or pattern of transducer elements 62 in the array), the acoustic transducer comprising a plurality of transducer elements (transducer elements 62). (Abstract, Paragraphs 6, 55, 50, 45, Figs.5-6)
Anand also teaches to determine (S640) a dead threshold (dead transducer elements 62) for the acoustic transducer based on the test response signal (transducer test results). (Paragraphs 50-52, 59-62, Figs.6-8)
Anand also teaches for each transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements (each transducer element is successively actuated and sensed), determine whether that transducer element is a dead element (dead transducer elements 62) based on the dead threshold. (Paragraphs 50-52, 59-62, Figs.6-8)
Anand also teaches in response to determining a transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements comprises the dead element, assign a failed state (fail to meet operating standards) as the operation state of the acoustic transducer, otherwise, determine whether a number of weak elements exceeds an acceptable weak element threshold, and assign the failed state as the operation state of the acoustic transducer when the number of weak elements exceeds the acceptable weak element threshold, otherwise assign a pass state as the operation state of the acoustic transducer. (Paragraphs 6, 50-52, 57, 59-62, Figs.6-8)
Anand also teaches to transmit, via the network, the operation state of the acoustic transducer to the testing device. (Paragraphs 54, 58-59, Claim 4, Fig.6)
Anand does not explicitly teach to determine a weak operation range and determine whether that transducer element is one of a weak element based on the weak operation range.
Beaty teaches to determine a weak operation range and determine whether that transducer element is one of a weak element based on the weak operation range. (Paragraphs 25-26, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate to determine a weak operation range and determine whether that transducer element is one of a weak element based on the weak operation range in order for the user to receive real-time system updates indicating fix and/or damage information.
Regarding claim 2, Anand teaches to receive, via the network from the testing device, a transducer device data corresponding to the acoustic transducer; determine from the transducer device data a number of transducer elements at the acoustic transducer; and determine the dead threshold for the acoustic transducer based on the test response signal and the number of transducer elements at the acoustic transducer. (Paragraphs 50-55, 61-62, Figs.5-6)
Anand does not explicitly teach to determine the weak operation range.
Beaty teaches to determine the weak operation range. (Paragraphs 25-26, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate to determine the weak operation range in order for the user to receive real-time system updates indicating fix and/or damage information.
Regarding claim 3, Anand teaches operating the remote evaluation system to determine the dead threshold based on one or more device characteristic determined from the transducer device data. (Paragraphs 50-55, 61-62, Figs.5-6)
Anand does not explicitly teach to determine the weak operation range.
Beaty teaches to determine the weak operation range. (Paragraphs 25-26, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate to determine the weak operation range in order for the user to receive real-time system updates indicating fix and/or damage information.
Regarding claim 7, Anand teaches wherein operating the remote evaluation system to determine whether the number of failed elements exceeds the acceptable failed element threshold comprises: determining whether the number of failed elements exceeds a maximum number of failed elements; in response to determining the number of failed elements exceeds the maximum number of failed elements, assigning the failed state as the operation state of the acoustic transducer; and otherwise, determining whether the number of failed elements comprises two or more consecutive failed elements, and assigning the failed state as the operation state of the acoustic transducer in response to determining the number of failed elements comprises the two or more consecutive failed elements. (Paragraphs 57, 6-7, 50, Figs.5-6)
Anand does not explicitly teach to determine a number of weak elements.
Beaty teaches to determine a number of weak elements. (Paragraphs 25-26, Fig.6)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate to determine a number of weak elements in order for the user to receive real-time system updates indicating fix and/or damage information.
Regarding claim 8, Anand teaches wherein the test response signal comprises a response signal from each transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements. (Paragraphs 5-7, 48-55, 61-62, Figs.5-6)
Regarding claim 10, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 1. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 10, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 2. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 11, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 3. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 12, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 3.
Regarding claim 16, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 7. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 16, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 7.
Regarding claim 17, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 8. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 17, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 8.
Claim(s) 4-6 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand in view of Beaty and Straub (US 20090240453 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Anand does not explicitly teach determining an average amplitude for the test response signal for the plurality of transducer elements; and defining the weak operation range based on the average amplitude.
Straub teaches determining an average amplitude for the test response signal for the plurality of transducer elements; and defining the weak operation range based on the average amplitude. (Paragraphs 29-30, 35-37, Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate determining an average amplitude for the test response signal for the plurality of transducer elements; and defining the weak operation range based on the average amplitude as taught by Straub in order to sufficiently identify performance changes indicating failure.
Regarding claim 5, Anand does not explicitly teach wherein defining the weak operation range comprises setting a lower end of the weak operation range and an upper end of the weak operation range with respect to the average amplitude.
Straub teaches wherein defining the weak operation range comprises setting a lower end of the weak operation range and an upper end of the weak operation range with respect to the average amplitude. (Paragraphs 29-30, 35-37, Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate wherein defining the weak operation range comprises setting a lower end of the weak operation range and an upper end of the weak operation range with respect to the average amplitude as taught by Straub in order to sufficiently identify performance changes indicating failure.
Regarding claim 6, Anand does not explicitly teach determining a maximum amplitude within the test response signal for the plurality of transducer elements; and assigning the dead threshold with respect to the maximum amplitude.
Straub teaches determining a maximum amplitude within the test response signal for the plurality of transducer elements; and assigning the dead threshold with respect to the maximum amplitude. (Paragraphs 29-30, 35-37, Fig.3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate determining a maximum amplitude within the test response signal for the plurality of transducer elements; and assigning the dead threshold with respect to the maximum amplitude as taught by Straub in order to sufficiently identify performance changes indicating failure.
Regarding claim 13, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 4. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 13, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 4.
Regarding claim 14, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 5. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 14, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 5.
Regarding claim 15, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 6. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 15, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 6.
Claim(s) 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anand in view of Beaty and Birchak (US 5763773 A).
Regarding claim 9, Anand does not explicitly teach wherein the response signal comprises a voltage peak-to- peak signal.
Birchak teaches wherein the response signal comprises a voltage peak-to- peak signal. (Col.12, lines 6-9)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Anand to incorporate wherein the response signal comprises a voltage peak-to- peak signal as taught by Birchak in order to ensure component ratings are sufficient and to analyze waveforms and full voltage swing of a signal.
Regarding claim 18, the claim discloses substantially the same limitations, as claim 9. All limitations as recited have been analyzed and rejected with respect to claim 18, and do not introduce any additional narrowing of the scopes of the claims as analyzed. Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same rational over the prior art cited in claim 9.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDALLAH ABULABAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4755. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00am-3:00pm EST.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/ABDALLAH ABULABAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3645