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 .
DETAILED ACTION
The amendment filed 12/12/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4 and 6-7 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant' s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and all subsequent dependent claims have been considered but are moot in view of the references cited in the most current rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi (WO 2021020038 A1, all citations proved from machine translation attached) in view of Yamada (JP 2006324729 A, all citations proved from machine translation attached) and Hwangbo (KR 20050048884 A, all citations proved from machine translation attached).
Regarding claim 1, Noguchi teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (1) comprising: a transmission and reception section (14) that outputs a frame sequence. (Page.2, Last Paragraph -Page.3, First Paragraph, Figs.1, 10)
Noguchi also teaches a processing section (25) that processes the frame sequence output from the transmission and reception section (14). (Page.9, Last Paragraph-Page.10, First Paragraph, Figs.1, 10)
Noguchi also teaches communication unit (18) that is provided downstream of the processing section (25) and transfers the frame sequence processed by the processing section to an external apparatus (3). (Page.5, lines 8-19, Page.15, lines 41-48, Figs.1, 10)
Noguchi also teaches a monitoring unit (42) that determines whether or not a frame activity occurs in the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus by monitoring the transfer of the frame sequence (32) by the communication unit. (Page.9, Last Paragraph-Page.10, First Paragraph, Page.7, lines 20-29, Page.5, lines 24-36, Figs.1, 10)
Noguchi also teaches a control unit (39) that reduces a data amount in the frame sequence (past frame is reduced) to be transmitted to the external apparatus by changing at least one of a transmission and reception condition in the transmission and reception section or a processing condition in the processing section in a case where it is determined that the frame activity occurs. (Page.8, Page.10, Figs.1, 10)
Noguchi teaches wherein the control unit reduces a data amount in each frame constituting the frame sequence transferred by the communication unit by changing the processing condition in the processing section in a case where it is determined that the frame activity occurs. (Page.8, Page.10, Fig.1)
Noguchi does not explicitly teach determining if frame congestion is occurring and wherein the data amount in each frame is reduced by lowering a resolution of each frame and wherein the control unit changes the processing condition by lowering the resolution of each frame until the frame congestion is eliminated.
Yamada teaches determining if frame congestion is occurring. (Abstract, Page.1, Last Paragraph-Page.2, First Paragraph, Page.2, lines 9-15, Page.3, lines 2-3)
Hwangbo teaches wherein the data amount in each frame is reduced by lowering a resolution of each frame (reducing the resolution) and wherein the control unit changes the processing condition by lowering the resolution of each frame until the frame congestion is eliminated (solving the traffic congestion by reducing the data, by reducing the data size by eliminating the B-Frame of MPEG or reducing the resolution). (Page.5, lines 44-45)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Noguchi to incorporate determining if frame congestion is occurring as taught by Yamada in order to detect faults in the device monitoring and further modify Noguchi to incorporate wherein the data amount in each frame is reduced by lowering a resolution of each frame and wherein the control unit changes the processing condition by lowering the resolution of each frame until the frame congestion is eliminated as taught by Hwangbo in order to monitors the overload and executes the corresponding service module step by step to ensure the quality of service (QoS) for the user.
Regarding claim 2, Noguchi teaches wherein the monitoring unit (42) includes a calculator (32) that calculates an actual transfer rate for the frame sequence transferred by the communication unit, and a determiner (35) that determines that the frame activity occurs in a case where the actual transfer rate is lower than a frame rate in the transmission and reception section. (Page.7, Page.6, Figs.1, 10)
Noguchi does not explicitly teach determining if frame congestion is occurring.
Yamada teaches determining if frame congestion is occurring. (Abstract, Page.1, Last Paragraph-Page.2, First Paragraph, Page.2, lines 9-15, Page.3, lines 2-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Noguchi to incorporate determining if frame congestion is occurring in order to detect faults in the device monitoring.
Regarding claim 3, Noguchi teaches wherein the control unit reduces the data amount in the frame sequence transferred by the communication unit so that the frame is adjusted. (Page.8, Page.10, Figs.1, 10) Examiner notes that the language “…so that the…” is considered desired outcome/intended use and therefore has no patentable weight.
Noguchi does not explicitly teach the frame congestion is eliminated.
Hwangbo teaches the frame congestion is eliminated. (Page.5, lines 44-45)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Noguchi to incorporate the frame congestion is eliminated as taught by Hwangbo in order to monitors the overload and executes the corresponding service module step by step to ensure the quality of service (QoS) for the user.
Regarding claim 4, Noguchi teaches wherein the transmission and reception condition in the transmission and reception section is a frame rate, and the control unit reduces the frame rate in the transmission and reception section in a case where it is determined that the frame activity occurs. (Page.6, lines 17-19, Page.8, Page.10, lines 17-20, Fig.1)
Noguchi does not explicitly teach determining if frame congestion is occurring.
Yamada teaches determining if frame congestion is occurring. (Abstract, Page.1, Last Paragraph-Page.2, First Paragraph, Page.2, lines 9-15, Page.3, lines 2-3)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Noguchi to incorporate determining if frame congestion is occurring in order to detect faults in the device monitoring.
Regarding claim 6, Noguchi teaches reducing the data amount in the frame sequence (Page.8, Page.10, Fig.1) but Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit attempts recovery of the data amount in the frame sequence after reducing the data amount in the frame sequence.
Yamada teaches wherein the control unit attempts recovery of the data amount in the frame sequence after reducing the data amount in the frame sequence. (Page.3, lines 12-14, Page.5, lines 9-15, lines 28-31, Last Paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Noguchi to incorporate wherein the control unit attempts recovery of the data amount in the frame sequence after reducing the data amount in the frame sequence in order to identify a fault in the diagnostic device and reset the device accordingly.
Regarding claim 7, Noguchi does not explicitly teach wherein the control unit attempts the recovery of the data amount in the frame sequence in a case where a predetermined trial condition is satisfied.
Yamada teaches wherein the control unit attempts the recovery of the data amount in the frame sequence in a case where a predetermined trial condition is satisfied. (Page.3, lines 12-14, Page.5, lines 9-15, lines 28-31, Last Paragraph)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to have modified Noguchi to incorporate wherein the control unit attempts the recovery of the data amount in the frame sequence in a case where a predetermined trial condition is satisfied in order to identify a fault in the diagnostic device and reset the device accordingly.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645