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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot 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 in the argument.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 15 recites “ “display screen” in line 1. This should be corrected to ---display unit---. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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: a user interface unit, a display unit, a control unit in claims 1-14, 17-20 and probe connection unit in claims 2-3, 20.
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. Here, a user interface unit is interpreted as any off-the-shelf consumer electronic for inputting data, a display unit is interpreted as display screen, a control unit is interpreted as unit comprising processor for ultrasound processing, and probe connection unit as multi-probe box that may be implemented on a cart or 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 § 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.
Claims 1-14, 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nally [US 20230165564 A1] in view of Kim [US 6304431 B1].
As per claim 1, Nally teaches an ultrasound imaging system (Nally Fig 4) comprising:
a user interface unit comprising a user interface configured to receive user inputs from a user (Nally Fig 4);
a display unit comprising a display screen configured to display a graphical user interface, wherein the graphical user interface is configured to depict ultrasound images (Nally Fig 4, ¶0044 “ultrasound system 401 generates ultrasound images”, ¶0070 “the ultrasound system also has one or more user input devices (e.g., a keyboard, a cursor control device, etc.) that inputs data”); and
a control unit comprising Nally Fig 4, ¶0044 “Ultrasound system 401 includes a transceiver to receive ultrasound data sent by probe 100. …In response to receiving the ultrasound data, ultrasound system 401 generates ultrasound images”, ¶0075 control unit implied),
controlling a probe (Nally ¶0051 “…the user interface receives a user selection of an additional graphic of the one or more graphics and the ultrasound probe is configured to move, responsive to the user selection of the transducer to a position corresponding to the flexion angle represented by the additional graphic”),
receiving ultrasound signals from the probe (Nally ¶0044 “Ultrasound system 401 includes a transceiver to receive ultrasound data sent by probe 100”), and
causing data to be displayed via the display unit (Nally ¶0044 “In response to receiving the ultrasound data, ultrasound system 401 generates ultrasound images that can be displayed on display 410”. See Figs 5),
Nally, does not expressly teach a control unit comprising a hinge component wherein the hinge component is configured to enable a position of the control unit to be adjusted with respect to at least one of the user interface unit or the display unit, wherein the user interface unit, the display unit, and the control unit are each separate components and are configured to selectively couple with at least one other unit in more than one configuration.
Kim, in a field of portable computer systems, teaches a control unit comprising a hinge component (Kim Fig 1, items 110, 130 Col 2 lines 50-53 “a main body 110 for controlling the entire system and corresponding to the main body of a desktop computer system”, Col 2 line 61)
wherein the hinge component is configured to enable a position of the control unit to be adjusted with respect to at least one of the user interface unit or the display unit (Kim Col 2 lines 60-63 “a hinge unit 130, combined with the display unit, for establishing an angle of rotation of the display unit with respect to the main body”);
wherein the user interface unit, the display unit, and the control unit are each separate components (Kim Fig 1 items 110, 120 and 140. Examiner interprets separate as ---not integrated as one---) and are configured to selectively couple with at least one other unit in more than one configuration (Kim Figs 1-2, 5 Col 3 lines 2-17 “the display unit 140 is first rotated into an upright or angled position according to the user's preference. … a predetermined angle θ between the opposing halves of the keyboard unit 120 is achieved” Different types of coupling causing different configurations. Note the hinges allow multiple configurations depending on angles).
Nally discloses general purpose computer that may be utilized, and even shows a figure illustration of such a computer (Nally Fig 4, ¶0075). Nally further discloses moving around hospital with a cart for easy examination (Nally ¶0062). Kim discloses methods for providing a computer that is portable and enables a comfortable and more ergonomic user environment (Kim abstract). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Nally by utilizing features for main body, a keyboard unit, and a display unit as in Kim. The motivation would be to provide a portable user interface, with a comfortable and more ergonomic user environment, for use with movable ultrasound examination cart of Nally.
As per claims 2-3, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further comprising a probe connection unit configured to receive and house the probe in a stowed position, wherein the probe connection unit is configured to receive and house a plurality of probes (Nally Fig 8A, ¶0059).
As per claim 4, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further wherein one or more of the user interface unit, the display unit, and the control unit are configured to couple with a cart configured to be moved via a plurality of wheels (Nally ¶0062 “the cabinet is mounted to a cart to enable movement of the cabinet. In some embodiments, the cart includes a push handle and wheels or other mechanism to facilitate movement of the cart”).
As per claim 5, Nally in view of Kim further teaches one more of the user interface unit, the display unit, and the control unit are configured to couple with a stationary object, wherein the stationary object comprises at least one of a stand, table, or bed (Nally Fig 8B item 840, ¶0062. Note, a cart is capable of being stationary as well).
As per claim 6, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further wherein the control unit further comprises the hinge component, and the user interface unit or the display unit being directly coupled with the control unit by the hinge component (Kim Fig 1 items 130 / 121a /122a for directly coupling main body 110 to display 140 or keyboard 120).
As per claim 7, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further wherein the hinge component is adjustable such that an angle of the user interface unit or the display unit with respect to the control unit can be adjusted (Kim Figs 1-2, Fig 5).
As per claim 8, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further wherein the angle is between 90 degrees and 180 degrees (Kim Fig 5, folded vs open configuration for display unit).
As per claim 9, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further wherein the hinge component comprises a palm rest configured to enable the user to rest at least one of a palm, arm, or hand on the palm rest during the operation of the ultrasound imaging system (Kim Col 2 lines 65-67 “he keyboard unit 120 includes a palm rest portion that, along with the keyboard unit's separating rotation, can be separated into left and right palm rests 121b and 122b”).
As per claims 10-14, 17-19 have limitations similar to claims 1, 7-8 and are rejected for same reasons as above. Nally in view of Kim further teaches …a hinge component configured to directly couple the control unit with one of the user interface unit or the display unit, the hinge component enabling a position of the control unit to be adjusted with respect to at least one of the user interface unit or the display unit, wherein the user interface unit is directly coupled with the control unit, and the display unit is directly coupled with the user interface unit (Kim Figs 1-2 direct coupling via hinges).
As per claim 20, Nally in view of Kim further teaches further comprising a probe connection unit configured to couple with the control unit, the probe connection unit configured to receive and house the probe (Nally Figs 6-7, probe end with mount 701 to receive and house the probes).
Claims 15-16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nally in view of Kim as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Ent [US 20180188774 A1].
As per claims 15-16, Nally in view of Kim does not expressly teach wherein the display screen is a first display screen, and the user interface unit further comprising a second display screen, wherein the second display screen is configured to be adjusted with respect to a primary plane of the user interface unit such that an angle of the second display screen with respect to the primary plane is adjustable.
Ent, also in the field of computing devices teaches, wherein the display screen is a first display screen, and the user interface unit further comprising a second display screen (Ent Fig 3 item 260), wherein the second display screen is configured to be adjusted with respect to a primary plane of the user interface unit such that an angle of the second display screen with respect to the primary plane is adjustable (Ent Fig 3, ¶0058).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Nally in view of Kim by integrating mini-displays so as to perform as a secondary display and allow a user to perform various tasks (e.g., workflow or workflows) using the main display while information may be rendered to the mini-display (Ent ¶0047).
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 OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights