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 .
Response to Amendment
This Office action is responsive to the amendment filed February 02, 2026. As directed by the amendment, claims 1, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14-16, 18 and 20 have been amended, and claims 2, 10 and 17 have been cancelled. Thus, claims 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 18-20 are presently pending.
The amendments to claims 14 and 15 are sufficient to overcome the objection to claim 15 and the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 15 from the previous Office action. Accordingly, the objection to claim 15 and the 35 U.S.C 112(b) rejection of claim 14 are hereby withdrawn.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on February 02, 2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of USP 11,253,229 and USP 12,042,331 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded. In view of this, the previous double patenting rejections of the pending claims have been withdrawn.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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:
“wireless communication module …to be wireless paired with the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus” - in claim 1;
“first data communication module to transmit a pairing signal for pairing” - in claim 3;
“second data communication module to transmit ultrasound raw data ” - in claim 3;
“wireless communication module …to be wireless paired with the wireless ultrasound probe” - in claim 9;
“first data communication module to transmit a pairing signal for pairing” - in claim 11; and
“second data communication module to receive ultrasound raw data ” - in claim 11;
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.
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 § 112
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 4, 9, 11-15 and 19 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.
The claims noted above require wireless charging between a cart-type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and the wireless ultrasound probe, however, the original disclosure as filed e.g., [0058], [0070], Fig. 6 @620 discloses a cart-type ultrasound apparatus providing charging power to a charger of the wireless ultrasound probe via a physical connection, there is no disclosure of wireless charging between a cart-type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and the wireless ultrasound probe. The only wireless charging disclosed is between a case 300 and the wireless ultrasound probe as discussed in [0059], [0063] and [0083]. In view of this, the original disclosure fails to convey to those of ordinary skill in the art that the Applicant was in possession of the invention now claimed. If examiner is mistaken, Applicant is respectfully requested to provide specific sections of the original disclosure that provide written description of the subject matter in question.
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 and 3-8 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 1 recites in part in lines 5-6, “a charger configured to perform wirelessly charging power for charging the battery …” As a first matter, the phrase “perform wirelessly charging” is grammatically incorrect. Secondly, it cannot be readily determined from the claims whether the charger is wirelessly charging the battery or receiving power wirelessly to charge the battery. For examination purposes only, consistent with the disclosure (e.g., Fig. 2), it will be presumed that claim 1 recites in part in lines 5-6 “ a charger configured to receive charging power wirelessly, for charging the battery …” and in line 11 “the charging power”. Claims 3-8 are likewise rejected, only because they include all limitations and deficiencies of claim 1.
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, 9, 16 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over newly discovered prior arts of UNO US 20180049722 A1 in view of Ragunathan US 20170209127 A1.
Regarding claims 1, 16 and 20, UNO discloses a wireless ultrasound probe configurable to be wirelessly connected to an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, associated method and non-transitory computer readable medium (see [abstract], Fig. 1, [0013] “The first device may be a device body and the second device may be a probe. Alternatively, the above-described technique may be applied to individual devices in a system having a first device, a second device, and a third device, in a state where the three devices are docked” [0015] for method and non-transitory medium comprising a program “The method may be realized by a control program for the first device and a control program for the second device. The programs are supplied to the devices via a recording medium, or via a network. Alternatively, the programs are pre-installed in a storage device in each device” comprising:
a battery ([0027] “wireless probe” - a battery is an inherent feature of a wireless probe to provide power); a wireless communication module ([0027] inherent feature to provide wireless communication, note discussion in [0013] when the probe is the second device as noted above or one of the three devices, the probe would have a an analogous wireless communicator discussed in [0009]); and a controller configured to control the wireless communication module transmit a wireless pairing signal to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus be wirelessly paired with the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0015] “establishing exclusive wireless communication using the key information between the first device and the second device every time the first device and the second device are set in a separated state. The method may be realized by a control program for the first device and a control program for the second device. The programs are supplied to the devices via a recording medium, or via a network. Alternatively, the programs are pre-installed in a storage device in each device”, a controller is an inherent feature of this configuration when the probe is the second device as noted above or one of the three devices [0013]), and perform wireless pairing with the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus based on the wireless pairing signal ([0055] “ For the pairing, a device ID, an IP address, a network ID (SSID), and other information may be exchanged. All or a part of these data may be exchanged every time the wireless communication is established”[Fig. 9 and [0059]), owing to the wired communication when docked ([0010] and Fig. 6, wired communication when docked with wireless communication suspended and wireless communication when separated with wired communication being suspended), the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus are not wirelessly communicated prior to the pairing noted in [0055].
UNO does not explicitly disclose a charger configured to receive charging power wirelessly, for charging the battery while the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus are not wirelessly communicated, and the controller in response to detecting that supply of the charging power to charge the battery is discontinued perform the wireless pairing.
However, Ragunathan discloses it was known to provide a wireless charging system for wireless charging an ultrasound imaging system in the prior art, that allows for continuous use of the ultrasound probe by enabling remote charging ([abstract], Fig. 3, [0005], [0022], note: Fig. 3 discloses the ultrasound probe 302, docked in charging/docking unit 310 that comprise a charging power supplier for charging, [0030-0031] and Fig. 5 disclose the ultrasound probe comprise an energy storage 502 in the form of a rechargeable battery and secondary coil 500 (i.e. a charger) configured to receive power wirelessly while docketed in the charging/docking unit 310 to charge the battery 502.
In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified UNO to include a charger configured to receive charging power wirelessly when docketed on a charging case and while remote from the charging case to charge the battery as disclosed by Ragunathan, to allow for remote charging of the ultrasound probe during use as taught by Ragunathan in [0005]. In modified UNO, when the ultrasound probe is docketed on the case, there will be no wireless communication as the ultrasound probe would be connected via a wired connection as taught by UNO and when removed from the case, the ultrasound would be separated from the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (see Fig. 2 of Ragunathan), wireless charging would be discontinued, and wireless pairing would follow as required by UNO in the event of a separation.
Regarding claim 9, UNO discloses an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus configurable to be wirelessly connected to a wireless ultrasound probe (see [abstract], Fig. 1, [0013] “The first device may be a device body and the second device may be a probe. Alternatively, the above-described technique may be applied to individual devices in a system having a first device, a second device, and a third device, in a state where the three devices are docked” - device body reads on the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, e.g., Fig. 3, combination of “12” and 14” is taken to read on ultrasound diagnostic apparatus), the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a wireless communication module (Fig. 4, wireless communicator “54” and “56”); and
a controller configured to control the wireless communication module to transmit a wireless pairing signal to the wireless ultrasound probe in response to detection of separation between the wireless probe and ultrasound diagnostic apparatus([0039], Fig. 4, controller “52”, [0015] “establishing exclusive wireless communication using the key information between the first device and the second device every time the first device and the second device are set in a separated state. The method may be realized by a control program for the first device and a control program for the second device. The programs are supplied to the devices via a recording medium, or via a network. Alternatively, the programs are pre-installed in a storage device in each device”) and perform wireless pairing with the wireless ultrasound probe based on the wireless pairing signal l ([0055] “ For the pairing, a device ID, an IP address, a network ID (SSID), and other information may be exchanged. All or a part of these data may be exchanged every time the wireless communication is established”[Fig. 9 and [0059]), owing to the wired communication when docked ([0010] and Fig. 6, wired communication when docked with wireless communication suspended and wireless communication when separated with wired communication being suspended), the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus are not wirelessly communicated prior to the pairing noted in [0055].
UNO does not explicitly discloses a charging power supplier configured to supply a charging power wirelessly to the wireless ultrasound probe while the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus are not wirelessly communicated and the controller in response to detecting that supply of the charging power to charge the battery is discontinued perform the wireless pairing.
Ragunathan discloses it was known to provide a wireless charging system for wireless charging an ultrasound imaging system in the prior art, that allows for continuous use of the ultrasound probe by enabling remote charging ([abstract], Fig. 3, [0005], [0022], note: Fig. 3 discloses the ultrasound probe 302, docked in case 310 including a case battery and charging power supplier for charging, [0030-0031] and Fig. 5 disclose the ultrasound probe comprise an energy storage 502 in the form of a rechargeable battery and secondary coil 500 (i.e. a charger) configured to receive power wirelessly while docketed in the case 310 to charge the battery 502.
In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified UNO to include a charger configured to receive charging power wirelessly when docketed on a charging case and while remote from the charging case to charge the battery as disclosed by Ragunathan, to allow for remote charging of the ultrasound probe during use as taught by Ragunathan in [0005]. In modified UNO, when the ultrasound probe is docketed on the case, there will be no wireless communication as the ultrasound probe would be connected via a wired connection as taught by UNO and when removed from the case, the ultrasound would be separated from the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (see Fig. 2 of Ragunathan), wireless charging would be discontinued, and wireless pairing would follow as required by UNO in the event of a separation.
Claims 3-5, 11-13 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNO in view of Ragunathan as applied to claim 1, 9 or 16 above, and further in view of previously cited JIN et al., US 20170179774 A1, hereinafter “JIN”.
Regarding claim 3, 11 and 18, UNO in view of Ragunathan discloses the claimed invention as discussed above, UNO further discloses the wireless communication module comprises a first data communication module to transmit the wireless pairing signal (Figs. 4, 5, 7, “wireless communicator (second scheme)”) and a second data communication module to transmit ultrasound data (Fig. 7, “wireless communicator (first scheme)”, [0029] “ The first wireless communication scheme is faster compared to the second wireless communication scheme, and in the present embodiment, ultrasound reception data is transferred … using the first wireless communication scheme”. UNO does not specify that the ultrasound data is “raw”.
JIN discloses in [0137] - [0138] a first data communication module equivalent thereof as disclosed in instant application printed publication in [0050], between the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus for pairing the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and a second data communication module equivalent thereof as disclosed in instant application printed publication in [0050] between the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus for transmitting ultrasound raw data via a 60 GHz wireless communication method ([0141]), to perform the pairing in [0137-0138] and ultrasound raw data transmission, two distinct data communication modules are used and the second data communication module is selected based on bandwidth, for efficiency in data transfer.
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the wireless ultrasound probe and ultrasound diagnostic apparatus of UNO in view of Ragunathan with a first and second data communication modules as taught by JIN, for a more effective and efficient connection and raw ultrasound data transfer based on bandwidth, between the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus.
Regarding claim 4, 5, 12, 13 and 19, UNO in view of Ragunathan does not explicitly disclose that the controller of the ultrasound probe (claim 4, 19), the controller of the wireless ultrasound probe is configured to control the wireless communication module to transmit at least battery information to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (claim 5) or the controller of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (claim 12) is configured to control wireless communication module to transmit or receive ultrasound raw data based on the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus being a cart type or receive remaining battery amount information (claim 13), and configured to control the wireless communication model to perform analog-to-digital conversion of ultrasound raw data to transmit or receive, based on the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus being a portable-type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus.
However, JIN discloses in [0072] wherein the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus may be a cart type or a portable type, and in [0083] discloses wherein ultrasound raw data may be transmitted by the wireless ultrasound probe to a cart-type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (see Fig. 1), and further wherein the raw data may alternatively be transmitted by performing analog-digital conversion, as per [0083], the latter would refer to portable ultrasound diagnostic apparatus e.g., as discussed in [0110] and [0113-0114], the data transmitted is dependent of whether the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus is equipped with an image processor. Moreover, JIN discloses after pairing of the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (i.e., during a session [0138]), the wireless ultrasound probe transmits information about the battery to the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus so as to request for charging of the battery of the wireless ultrasound probe [0154-0157].
In view of these teachings, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to have modified the controller of the wireless ultrasound probe and the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus of UNO in view of Ragunathan to transmit either ultrasound raw data for a cart type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus equipped with an image processor, send battery information to the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus or perform analog-to-digital conversion of ultrasound raw data for transmission to a portable type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus not equipped with image processor, to increase versatility of interaction of the wireless ultrasound probe in sharing ultrasound data with different varieties of ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, and allowing sharing of battery information would allow for the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus to enable wireless charging of the probe during use as needed when the battery level of the wireless ultrasound probe is low.
Claim 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNO in view of Ragunathan as applied to claims 1, 9 above, and further in view of previously cited Poland et al., US 20100168576 A1 (hereinafter "Poland").
Regarding claims 6 and 15, UNO in view of Ragunathan discloses the invention of claims 1 and 9 as discussed above, but does not further disclose the controller of the wireless ultrasound probe or the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus is detect an activation signal indicating at least one of contact between the wireless ultrasound probe and an object, application of a gel with respect to the wireless ultrasound probe, motion of a user holding the wireless ultrasound probe, and a button input with respect to the wireless ultrasound probe, and activate, in response to the activation signal, the wireless ultrasound probe to transmit an ultrasound signal to the object.
Poland discloses in [0026] and Fig. 1c, a wireless user interface “32” that includes an on/off switch for a wireless ultrasound probe to remotely control the wireless ultrasound probe, an activation signal in regards to on/off switch would cause transmission of a beamforming control signal to the wireless ultrasound probe to transmit ultrasound signal to the object. In view of these, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the controller of the wireless ultrasound or the controller of the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus to detect a button input with respect to the ultrasound probe from a switch, so as to facilitate activation and/or deactivation of the ultrasound probe as needed by the controller of either the wireless ultrasound probe or the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNO in view of Ragunathan as applied to claims 1 above, and further in view of Diener et al., US 20080104300 A1 (“Diener”).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, UNO in view of Ragunathan as discussed in claim 1 discloses wherein the wireless ultrasound probe is mounted in a case including a charging power supplier (Ragunathan, [0022], Fig. 3, charging unit 310 as a docking unit with power source 308), as discussed in claim 1, the controller will control the wireless communication unit to transmit the wireless pairing signal in the even of detecting a separation, i.e. the charger is detached from the case. Uno in view of Ragunathan fails to explicitly disclose wherein the case/charging unit 310 includes a battery.
However, Diener in the same field of endeavor of docking stations for diagnostic medical equipment ([abstract], [0014]) discloses a docking station (“30”) that comprise a battery (“31”, “32”, “33”) to charge a battery of the diagnostic medical device ([0017], [0019]). In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the charging unit of UNO in view of Ragunathan to include a battery to provide power to charge the battery of the wireless ultrasound probe, to increase versatility by allowing use in places without a wired source of power.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over UNO in view of Ragunathan and JIN as applied to claims 13 above, and further in view of Poland.
Regarding claim 14, UNO in view of Ragunathan and Jin discloses the invention of claim 13 as discussed above, UNO discloses the ultrasound diagnostic device further comprising a display (see Fig. 1 of UNO, [0032], display panel “30”), however UNO does not explicitly disclose that the display is configured to display a user interface indicating by text or an icon, the probe characteristic information received from the wireless ultrasound probe.
Poland [0026] discloses a wireless user interface “32” and base station for wireless ultrasound probe that read on ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that is wirelessly connected to the wireless probe, Figs. Figs. 2a, 2b or 6a the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprise a display, Fig. 1c discloses probe characteristic information (i.e., signal strength indicator and battery charge indicator) on a control panel and not a display, Fig. 9A discloses similar probe characteristic information (i.e., battery strength indicator “134” and signal strength indicators “132”) in form of icons on a display 136 of a user interface on the wireless ultrasound probe, to provide a user with basic display information when the probe is not tethered ([0044]). Poland thus suggest providing similar information on an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and the wireless ultrasound probe, the only distinction being that the information on the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus is not inform of icons on a display.
At the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the display of UNO in view of Ragunathan and Jin to include probe characteristic information in the form of icons as taught by Poland, for quick reference when operating from the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-9, 11-16 and 18-20 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection in view of newly discovered prior art references of UNO and Ragunathan as set forth above, and because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged by Applicant in the argument.
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 BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797