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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 2-3, 9-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the disclosed invention is inoperative and therefore lacks utility.
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and incorporates it in its entirety. It further recites “the magnitudes of the first and second drive signals comprise a maximum magnitude and a minimum magnitude, respectively”. However, claim 1 recites “a second drive signal having substantially the magnitude of the first drive signal”. The magnitudes of the first and second drive signals cannot be simultaneously the same and different.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2 and is rejected for the reasons presented above.
Claim 9 depends from claim 8 and incorporates it in its entirety. It further recites “the magnitudes of the first and second drive signals comprise a maximum magnitude and a minimum magnitude, respectively”. However, claim 8 recites “a second drive signal having substantially the magnitude of the first drive signal”. The magnitudes of the first and second drive signals cannot be simultaneously the same and different.
Claims 10-12 depend from claim 9 and are rejected for the reasons presented above.
Claim 15 depends from claim 14 and incorporates it in its entirety. It further recites “the magnitudes of the first and second drive signals comprise a maximum magnitude and a minimum magnitude, respectively”. However, claim 8 recites “a second drive signal having substantially the magnitude of the first drive signal”. The magnitudes of the first and second drive signals cannot be simultaneously the same and different.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Noguchi (2020/0397411).
With respect to claim 1, Noguchi discloses an ultrasound imaging device comprising a transducer ([0040], line 4; [0043], line 2); a controller comprising a processor connected to the ultrasound imaging device, and adapted to drive the transducer of the ultrasound imaging device ([0041], lines 1-2; [0059], lines 1-2, 6-9, 18-19); and a memory that stores instructions ([0058]), which when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: initialize the ultrasound imaging device by applying a first drive signal having a magnitude and a sign ([0044], lines 14-16), and a second drive signal having substantially the magnitude of the first drive signal and an opposite sign to the sign of the first drive signal ([0044], lines 16-18; Fig 7).
With respect to claim 8, Noguchi discloses applying to a transducer, with a processor ([0041], lines 1-2; [0059], lines 1-2, 6-9, 18-19), a first drive signal ([0044], lines 14-16) having a magnitude and a sign, and a second drive signal having substantially the magnitude of the first drive signal and an opposite sign to the sign of the first drive signal ([0044], lines 16-18; Fig 7).
With respect to claim 14, Noguchi discloses a tangible, non-transitory computer-readable medium that stores instructions ([0058]), which when executed by a processor ([0041], lines 1-2; [0059], lines 1-2, 6-9, 18-19), cause the processor to: initialize an ultrasound imaging device comprising a transducer ([0040], line 4; [0043], line 2) by applying a first drive signal having a magnitude and a sign ([0044], lines 14-16), and a second drive signal having substantially the magnitude of the first drive signal and an opposite sign to the sign of the first drive signal ([0044], lines 16-18; Fig 7).
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.
Claims 7 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Noguchi in view of Hoffman (2010/0102672).
Noguchi as modified teaches the invention as shown above. It further teaches a voltage supply ([0044], lines 7-9). However, it does not teach a drive amplifier, wherein the magnitude of the first drive signal and the magnitude of the second drive signal are between approximately +70% to approximately 100% of the maximum magnitude from the voltage supply and between approximately 70% and 100% of the maximum value for the drive amplifier.
Hoffman teaches a drive amplifier ([0038], lines 5-6). Hoffman further teaches that it is critical for the maximum power to be transferred from the drive amplifier to the transducer for optimal operation. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to modify the system of Noguchi with the drive amplifier and maximal operation of Hoffman since that would have provided for the optimal operation of the system.
It further would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to have the magnitude of the first drive signal and the magnitude of the second drive signal be between approximately +70% to approximately 100% of the maximum magnitude from the voltage supply and between approximately 70% and 100% of the maximum value for the drive amplifier since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-6, 13, and 16-18 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.
Conclusion
The prior art which is cited but not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references made herein are done so for the convenience of the applicant. They are in no way intended to be limiting. The prior art should be considered in its entirety.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTINE E BREIER whose telephone number is (571)270-7614. The examiner can normally be reached Monday (9:30am-6:30pm); Tuesday & Friday (11:30am-5:30pm).
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.
/KRYSTINE E BREIER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645
Prosecution Insights