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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “receiving the command to initiated the high electric power mode” is grammatically incorrect.
Claims 7, 8, 10, 12-17, 19, 20 are objected to because of the following informalities: “processor configured” is grammatically incorrect. The Office recommends replacing with “processor is configured.”
Appropriate correction is required. Please thoroughly review all claims for grammatical clarity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US20230371926 (herein Murakami).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches A wireless probe (probe 1, [0046]) comprising:
a transmission module configured to transmit an ultrasonic signal to an object (transmission circuit 12, [0046]);
a main power source unit configured to supply electric power to the transmission module (battery 20, [0070]);
an auxiliary power supply device comprising an auxiliary power source unit configured to supply electric power to the transmission module (main body 2, [0083]; battery 38, [0086]); and
at least one processor configured to control the main power source unit or the auxiliary power source unit to supply electric power to the transmission module from the main power source unit or the auxiliary power source unit based on receiving a command to initiate an operating mode (processor 19, [0076]; [0075] teaches switch SW2 connecting to either battery 20 or battery 38).
Regarding claim 2, Murakami teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to control the main power source unit and the auxiliary power source unit to supply electric power to the transmission module from the auxiliary power source unit based on receiving a command to initiate a high electric power mode (transmission and reception control unit 14 controls the transmission circuit 12 and the reception circuit 13 to transmit the ultrasound beam and receive the ultrasound echo based on an examination mode and a scanning method as instructed by the probe control unit 18, [0060]; changeover switch SW2 is switched and controlled by the probe control unit 18 such that the built-in battery 20 is connected to the system power supply circuit 22, [0093]).
Regarding claim 3, Murakami teaches wherein the high electric power mode comprises a Continuous-Wave Doppler mode or a Shear Wave Elastography mode (examination mode includes a continuous wave doppler mode, [0060]).
Regarding claim 4, Murakami teaches wherein the auxiliary power supply device is connected to or disconnected from the wireless probe by a user (input device 36 is used for the operator to perform an input operation, [0084]; for examination modes in [0060]).
Regarding claim 17, Murakami teaches an ultrasonic imaging system (ultrasonic probe 1, [0046])) comprising: a wireless probe as claimed in claim 2 (see rejection of claim 2 above).
Regarding claim 18, Murakami teaches wherein the high electric power mode comprises a Continuous-Wave Doppler mode or a Shear Wave Elastography mode (examination mode includes a continuous wave doppler mode, [0060]).
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) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of US 20190110777 (herein Lee).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami teaches wherein the main power source unit comprises: a main battery and a first switch configured to control the connection between the main battery and the transmission module (switch SW1, battery 20, Fig. 1), and the auxiliary power source unit comprises: an auxiliary battery (battery 38, Fig. 1), an output voltage variable module configured to vary a voltage of the electric power outputted from the auxiliary battery (power voltage boosted to about 70 to 100 V by the HV power supply circuit 39, [0103]. Murakami does not teach, “a capacitor configured to charge electric energy for supplying electric power to the transmission module, a constant current circuit connected to the output voltage variable module to supply a constant current to the capacitor, a second switch configured to control the connection between the constant current circuit and the capacitor and a third switch configured to control the connection between the capacitor and the transmission module.” However, Lee teaches an equivalent limitation is known in the art (Fig. 4 and [0083]-[0085] teach a power circuit having a capacitor 401 to supply to transmission circuit 330, a constant current circuit 402 connected to capacitor 401, a switch 403 that controls connection between constant current circuit 402 and capacitor 401, and a switch 404 that controls the connection between capacitor 401 and transmission circuit 330).
Regarding claim 6, Murakami teaches wherein a capacity of the auxiliary battery is equal to or greater than a capacity of the main battery (apparatus main body 2 can also be configured to draw power from a commercial power source without incorporating the battery 38, [0123]; commercial power sources in the art are inherently larger than non-commercial power, and the one cited in [0123] correspond to auxiliary battery of the present invention).
For the above claims 5-6, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate equivalent elements of power circuit of Lee into the probe of Murakami. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose of maintaining the provision of adequate power across all modes of operations ([0018]).
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami and Lee as applied to claims 5 and 17 above, and further in view of US 20140107466 (herein Song).
Regarding claim 15, Murakami and Lee do not teach, “wherein the at least one processor configured to transmit a control command to display the capacity of the auxiliary battery based on the connection of the auxiliary power supply device being activated.” However, Song teaches it is known in the art to program a controller 120 to display remaining battery capacities on a display 130 based on which batteries are connected ([0129]).
Regarding claim 19, Murakami teaches at least one input interface (input device 36, Fig. 1); and at least one display (monitor 33, Fig. 1). Murakami and Lee do not teach, “wherein the at least one processor configured to control the at least one display to display a capacity of the auxiliary battery based on the connection of the auxiliary power supply device being activated.” However, Song teaches it is known in the art to program a controller 120 to display remaining battery capacities on a display 130 based on which batteries are connected ([0129]).
Regarding claims 15 and 19, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the displaying mechanism of Song to show on the monitor 33 of Murakami. One would be motivated to do so for at least the purpose of preventing a full discharge from interfering with data capture ([0105]). In addition, a limitation involving displaying data on a graphical user interface was found to be an obvious functional relationship and not new as discussed in MPEP §2111.05. Specifically, MPEP 2111.05 (B)(III) states that these claims are directed toward conveying meaning to the human reader rather than towards establishing a functional relationship between recorded data and the computer.
Claim(s) 16 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami and Lee as applied to claims 5 and 18 above, and further in view of US 20240055891 (herein Brochtrup).
Regarding claim 16, Murakami and Lee do not teach, “wherein the at least one processor configured to transmit a control command to deactivate an input interface related to the high electric power mode based on the connection of the auxiliary power supply device being deactivated.” However, Brochtrup teaches it is known in the art to have auxiliary power (AC power, [0071]), wherein when not connected (AC bypass mode, [0084]) it deactivates a particular input interface (when in the AC bypass mode, the first switch is closed, and a voltage converter electrically connected between the first switch and the battery core is disabled, [0020]).
Regarding claim 20, Murakami and Lee do not teach, “wherein the at least one processor configured to control the at least one input interface to deactivate the at least one input interface related to the high electric power mode based on the connection of the auxiliary power supply device being deactivated.” However, Brochtrup teaches it is known in the art to have auxiliary power (AC power, [0071]), wherein when not connected (AC bypass mode, [0084]) it deactivates a particular input interface (when in the AC bypass mode, the first switch is closed, and a voltage converter electrically connected between the first switch and the battery core is disabled, [0020]).
For the above claims 16 and 20, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to incorporate the functionality of Brochtrup into the processor of Murakami. One would have been motivated to do so for at least the purpose disabling modes if not enough power being present ([0040]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-14 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.
Regarding claims 7-10, the prior art does not teach, “wherein the at least one processor configured to: determine whether the connection of the auxiliary power supply device is activated based on receiving the command to initiated the high electric power mode, determine whether predetermined charging conditions for starting charging the capacitor are satisfied based on the connection of the auxiliary power supply device being activated, and turn on the first and second switches and turn off the third switch based on the charging conditions being satisfied.” Lee teaches relevant capacitor 401 but the capacitor of Lee is not associated with an auxiliary battery 38 of Murakami equivalent to the present invention.
Regarding claims 11-14, the prior art does not teach, “a reception module comprising: an amplifier configured to amplify the received echo signal; a main reception circuit configured to convert the echo signal amplified by the amplifier into a digital signal; and a fifth switch configured to control the connection between the amplifier and the main reception circuit, wherein the auxiliary power supply device further comprises: an auxiliary reception circuit configured to convert an echo signal into a digital signal in predetermined operation modes including the continuous-wave Doppler mode; and a sixth switch configured to control the connection between the amplifier and the auxiliary reception circuit.” Lee may teach amplifier for processing an echo signal ([0075]) but is silent regarding the claimed switch configuration of the present invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILIP FADUL whose telephone number is (571)272-5411. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 8pm-6pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at (571) 272-1674. 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.
/PHILIP T FADUL/Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights