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 filed 02/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amended limitation of evaluating signals based on a predetermined depth, previously-found reference of Iwasaki has been upheld. Paragraph [0041] & Figures 3(a)-(b) of Iwasaki teach that ultrasound reflection signals are obtained at specific time intervals. Because ultrasound operates via time-of-flight reflections, these time intervals correspond to specific depths.
Regarding the amended limitation that the amplitude values are determined for a single channel, newly-found reference of Burke has been introduced. Burke also operates by obtaining reflection signals at specific times, similar to Iwasaki, as depicted in Figure 7C of Burke.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Rejections under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 02/23/2026.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9, & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki (US 2010/0016720) in view of Burke (US 5,517,994).
Regarding claim 1, Iwasaki teaches an ultrasonic probe, comprising:
a transducer (plurality of ultrasonic oscillators, [0037]);
a self-diagnosis circuit (determiner, [0010]) configured to perform inspection of the transducer ([0010]); and
an output circuit (determination result displayer, [0011]) configured to output information that is in accordance with a result of the inspection performed by the self-diagnosis circuit (determination result, [0011]), wherein the self-diagnosis circuit is configured to sequentially cause a plurality of channels of the transducer to transmit and receive a signal one channel by one channel ([0040]), and determine that one or more of the channels have a failure in accordance with a difference between a maximum value (sum value of the brightness values for each line, [0043]) and a minimum value (“damaged oscillators…characteristically become entirely dark”, [0043]) of the signal received by the one or more of the channels within a predetermined period (specific time intervals, [0041], Figures 3(a)-(b)) being smaller than a threshold value ([0041], Figures 3(a)-(b)), the signal includes luminance information ([0043]) within a predetermined period corresponding to a predetermined depth ([0041], Figures 3(a)-(b)).
Paragraph [0043] states that damaged oscillators become “entirely dark”. This corresponds to a brightness value of zero. In fact, the minimum brightness value for an ultrasound system will always be zero.
Regarding the claimed predetermined depth, [0041] teaches that ultrasound reflections are obtained at specific time intervals and appear on the image as a plurality of stripes. These stripes are depicted in Figures 3(a)-(b), wherein, because the vertical axis represents time, each stripe depicts a different time. Because the time-of-flight for ultrasound is uniform in the same medium, each time interval also represents a depth. Thus, the brightness values at each stripe among the plurality of oscillators correspond to the same depth.
However, Iwasaki in view of Burke fail to disclose that the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value defines an amplitude value for the single channel.
Burke teaches that the difference between the maximum value and the minimum value defines an amplitude value for the single channel (Claim 14).
Amplitude is defined as the difference between the maximum and minimum values.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Iwasaki such that the difference between the maximum and minimum value defines an amplitude value for the single channel, as taught by Burke. This allows each channel to be analyzed independently, rather than in relation to all other channels, in the event that all channels are similarly defective.
Regarding claim 3, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic probe according to claim 1, and Iwasaki further teaches:
a storage (analysis result memory unit 19, [0038]) configured to store the result of the inspection ([0038]); and
a transmitter (determination result displayer, [0011]) configured to transmit the result of the inspection to an exterior (monitor, [0011]).
The determination result displayer performs the claims functions of both the output circuit in claim 1 and the transmitter in claim 3.
Regarding claim 8, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic probe according to claim 1, and Iwasaki further teaches that the output circuit is configured to output display information (determination result, [0011] & [0046]) indicating whether or not the one or more channels of the transducer have a failure in accordance with the result of the inspection performed by the self-diagnosis circuit (progression degree of the deterioration of the probe 11, Abstract; [0046]).
Regarding claim 9, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach an ultrasonic diagnostic system, comprising:
the ultrasonic probe according to claim 3 (See rejection of claim 3); and
a terminal (display 16, [0037]), the terminal including a display and being configured to display, on the display, the result of the inspection received from the ultrasonic probe ([0011] & [0046]).
Regarding claim 13, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic diagnostic system according to claim 9, and Iwasaki further teaches that the result of the inspection includes among a plurality of channels of the transducer, information on one or more of the channels that are determined to have a failure (progression degree of the deterioration of the probe 11, Abstract; [0046]).
Claims 2, 6, 12, & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Burke, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Lee (US 2021/0298723) and Karasawa (US 2010/0262005).
Regarding claim 2, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic probe according to claim 1.
However, Iwasaki in view of Burke fail to disclose a single housing, wherein the transducer and the output circuit are included in the single housing.
Lee teaches a single housing (ultrasound probe P, [0050], Figure 1), wherein the transducer (transducer array TA, [0054]) and the output circuit (own display 100P, [0100]) are included in the single housing ([0054] & [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Iwasaki and Burke to include a single housing, wherein the transducer and the output circuit are included in the single housing, as taught by Lee. This provides a compact design and allows the user to observe the results of the self-diagnosis in an easily-viewable format and location.
However, Iwasaki in view of Burke and Lee fail to disclose that the self-diagnosis circuit is included in the single housing.
Karasawa teaches that the self-diagnosis circuit (control unit 22, [0040]) is included in the single housing (ultrasonic probe 1, [0040]) ([0040] & Figure 1).
Iwasaki and Lee both teach a controller for making a self-diagnosis determination (determiner in [0010] of Iwasaki & controller in [0094]-[0095] of Lee). Although the control unit 22 of Karasawa is not taught to make a self-diagnosis determination, Examiner asserts that with self-diagnosis circuits known via Iwasaki and Lee, and Karasawa teaching that a control unit can be placed in the probe housing, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that a self-diagnosis circuit can be included in the single housing.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Iwasaki, Burke, and Lee such that the self-diagnosis circuit is included in the single housing, as taught by Karasawa. This provides a compact design and allows all the components that communicate with each other to be in the same housing, potentially improving signal transmission.
Regarding claim 6, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic probe according to claim 3.
Lee teaches a single housing, wherein the transducer and the output circuit are included in the single housing (See rejection of claim 2).
However, Iwasaki in view of Burke and Lee fail to disclose that the self-diagnosis circuit, the storage, and the transmitter are included in the single housing.
Karasawa teaches that the self-diagnosis circuit (control unit 22, [0040]), the storage (memory 17, [0040]), and the transmitter (communication control unit 19, [0040]) are included in the single housing (ultrasonic probe 1, [0040]) ([0040] & Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Iwasaki, Burke, and Lee such that the self-diagnosis circuit, the storage, and the transmitter are included in the single housing, as taught by Karasawa. This provides a compact design and allows all the components that communicate with each other to be in the same housing, potentially improving signal transmission.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 9.
Claim 16 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 13.
Claims 4-5, 10-11, & 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwasaki in view of Burke, as applied to claim 3, above, in further view of Lee.
Regarding claim 4, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic probe according to claim 3.
However, Iwasaki in view of Burke fail to disclose that the transmitter is configured to transmit the result of the inspection to the exterior wirelessly.
Lee teaches that the transmitter is configured to transmit the result of the inspection to the exterior wirelessly ([0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Iwasaki and Burke such that the transmitter is configured to transmit the result of the inspection to the exterior wirelessly, as taught by Lee. A wireless connection allows the user greater freedom in maneuvering and placing the probe.
Regarding claim 5, Iwasaki in view of Burke teach the ultrasonic probe according to claim 3.
However, Iwasaki in view of Burke fail to disclose that the transmitter is configured to transmit the result of the inspection to the exterior by wired communication.
Lee teaches that the transmitter is configured to transmit the result of the inspection to the exterior by wired communication (cable 5, [0050]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Iwasaki and Burke such that the transmitter is configured to transmit the result of the inspection to the exterior by wired communication, as taught by Lee. A wired connection can increase the speed of data transmission.
Claim 10 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 9.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 9.
Claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 13.
Claim 15 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 13.
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 ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights