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 .
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.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I in the reply filed on 01/21/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-8 and 16-20 are examined on the merits; and Claims 9-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 01/21/2026.
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.
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 1-5 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingett et al. (US 9,482,312), in view of Tang et al. (US 10,806,430).
Regarding the claims, Wingett discloses the following:
Regarding claim 1, a rope fixation device for ultrasound probe, comprising: a drive shaft (including 107), provided with a rope through-hole (201), the rope through-hole (201) penetrating through (fig. 2) the drive shaft (107), and two opposite ends of the rope through-hole being located on a side wall of the drive shaft (fig. 2); a rope (113), whose body being located in (col. 4, lines 40-45) the rope through-hole (201), and two ends of the rope respectively protruding out from the two opposite ends of the rope through-hole (fig. 2); and a fixing member (e.g., epoxy, col. 4, lines 48-49), one end of the fixing member adjacent to the rope through-hole comprising an end surface, at least part of the end surface abutting against the rope, thereby fixing the rope in the rope through-hole; and regarding claim 2, wherein the rope through-hole (201) is a straight line-shaped hole (fig. 2); and regarding claim 19, a rope transmission device for ultrasound probe, comprising a driven shaft (111) and a rope fixation device according to claim 1, wherein the rope (113) of the rope fixation device is connected to the driven shaft (111); and regarding claim 20, an ultrasound probe, comprising the rope transmission device according to claim 19.
PNG
media_image1.png
804
544
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, since Wingett discloses the use of an epoxy within the rope through-hole, Wingett cannot be said to disclose the limitations regarding a fixing hole (e.g., including the fixing hole being in communication with the rope through-hole; and a fixing member, being inserted into the fixing hole).
Tang teaches, regarding claim 1, a fixing hole (120), the fixing hole (120) being in communication with the rope through-hole (140); and a fixing member (300), being inserted into the fixing hole (120), one end (340) of the fixing member (300) adjacent to the rope through-hole (140) comprising an end surface (i.e., end of 340), at least part of the end surface (end of 340) abutting against the rope (200), thereby fixing the rope in the rope through-hole (figs. 1-2); and regarding claim 3, wherein the fixing hole (120) comprises a first fixing hole (fig. 2 shows unlabeled exterior counterbore section of 120) and a second fixing hole (fig. 2 shows unlabeled interior counterbore section of 120), spaced apart from each other on the drive shaft (fig. 2 shows counterbore sections axially spaced apart); and regarding claim 17, wherein the fixing hole (120) is a blind hole (figs. 1-2), extending in the drive shaft (100) and terminating in the rope through-hole (140), such that the end surface (end of 340) of the fixing member (300) presses the rope (200) against the inner wall (i.e., the arrangement of fig. 1) of the rope through-hole (140); and regarding claim 18, wherein the fixing hole (120) comprises a first hole section (fig. 2 shows unlabeled exterior counterbore section of 120 farthest from 140) and a second hole section (figs. 1-2 show unlabeled interior counterbore section of 120 closest to 140) connected to and in communication with the first hole section (figs. 1-2 show continuous 120); one end of the first hole section is connected to and in communication with the rope through-hole, and the other end of the first hole section is connected to and in communication with the second hole section (figs. 1-2); a diameter of the first hole section (i.e., exterior counterbore section of 120) is larger than a diameter of the second hole section (i.e., interior counterbore section); the fixing member (300) comprises a first segment (342) and a second segment (344) that are connected to each other (figs. 1-2); the first segment (342) is located in the first hole section, and the second segment (344) is located in the second hole section; an outer diameter of the first segment (342) is larger than an outer diameter of the second segment (344).
PNG
media_image2.png
380
671
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the fixing hole system as taught by Tang in place of the epoxy of Wingett, for the expected advantage of facilitating simple disassembly and/or repair, a well-known advantage in the art; and/or to provide for adjustability in the system (Tang, col. 4, lines 61-65), another well-known advantage in the art.
Further regarding claim 18, Tang teaches the first segment (342) is designed to be enclosed within the screw (320) in order to facilitate easier installation/disassembly (thrust of col. 4, lines 61-65), but is silent regarding the materials of the first segment (342). Therefore, the combination is silent regarding the limitation of “the first segment is an elastic member”. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to form the component (i.e., 342) out of an elastic material for the predictable result of optimizing the structural integrity of the components and/or facilitating simple assembly/disassembly while minimizing spacing and costs, since it has been held to be well-within the general skill of a worker in the art to select from known materials on the basis of their suitability for the intended use.1
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Wingett and Tang suggests the rope fixation device according to claim 3, as motivated above, and further Wingett discloses wherein a center line of the rope through-hole intersects an axis of the drive shaft (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Wingett and Tang suggests the rope fixation device according to claim 4, as motivated above, and Wingett further discloses the center line of the rope through-hole (figs. 1-2) and the axis of the drive shaft (figs. 1-2); but Wingett is otherwise silent regarding “wherein the center line of the rope through-hole is not perpendicular to the axis of the drive shaft”. However, it is reasoned that one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing is familiar with error tolerances in manufacturing, and since the figures of Wingett show an arrangement of the rope through-hole and the axis of the drive shaft which is approximately perpendicular within error tolerances, the figures reasonably teach to one of ordinary skill in the art2 a structural arrangement including wherein the center line of the rope through-hole not being perpendicular to the axis of the drive shaft. However, even if the figures of Wingett did not convey the claimed limitation to an ordinary practitioner, it still remains that it has been held to be well-within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to reconfigure a device according to design specifications. The claimed orientation of the rope through-hole center line does not appear to change the function of the claimed device, and applying the orientation, as claimed, to the device of the prior art would not change the function in any way. Therefore, since the only difference between the structure of the prior art and that of the claimed device is a recitation of relative orientation, and since the claimed device having the relative orientation would not function differently than the device of the prior art, the claimed device is not patentably distinct from the device of the prior art.3
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wingett et al. (US 9,482,312) and Tang et al. (US 10,806,430), in view of (CN 201225382).
The prior at does not disclose or suggest the limitations of claim 16, where the claimed phrasing “at least one of A and B” has been held4 to be “at least one of A and at least one of B”.
CN teaches an arrangement of first (21) and second (22) clamping blocks on either side of a through hole (11). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of effective filing to use the clamping block arrangement as taught by CN in place of the axial screw mechanism of Tang, for the expected benefit of reducing component wear.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or suggest all of the limitations of claims 6-8, in combination with the structure of the intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to T. S. FIX whose telephone number is (571)272-8535. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 10a-3p.
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, Minnah Seoh can be reached at 5712707778. 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.
/T. SCOTT FIX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3618
1 See discussions of MPEP 2144.07 regarding Sinclair & Carroll Co. v.Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945) and In reLeshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960).
2 MPEP 2125(II): ‘the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977) (“We disagree with the Solicitor’s conclusion, reached by a comparison of the relative dimensions of appellant’s and Bauer’s [the reference’s] drawing figures, that Bauer ‘clearly points to the use of a chime length of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a whiskey barrel.’ This ignores the fact that Bauer does not disclose that his drawings are to scale. ... However, we agree with the Solicitor that Bauer’s teaching that whiskey losses are influenced by the distance the liquor needs to ‘traverse the pores of the wood’ (albeit in reference to the thickness of the barrelhead)” would have suggested the desirability of an increased chime length to one of ordinary skill in the art bent on further reducing whiskey losses.” 569 F.2d at 1127, 193 USPQ at 335-36.)’
3 MPEP 2144.04(IV): In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966) (The court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.).
4 SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc. (358F.3d 870 (Fed. Cir. 2004))); see also Ex parte Jung (Appeal No. 2016-008290 (PTAB March 22, 2017))