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 § 112
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.
Claim 10-12, 13, 14 is 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.
In re claim 10 and 12, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a size of an inner surface of the body of the probe holder” are. Claim 1 already mentions “inner surface” but without an explicit link to “the body.” So what is “the body of probe holder” in claim 10? And what is the inner surface of the body?
In re claim 13 and 14, it is unclear what structure is claimed in these claims. For claim 13, it is unclear what’s the scope of “provided at.” Is it attached by some structure or just left on the table, like a pen rest on a table? Similarity for claim 14, it is unclear what’s the scope of “main body”? Is the control panel the main body? Is the “cart” or “wheel” a main body? What is the scope of a main body?
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) 1-5, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Verchick, Alan (US 2018/0263438, hereinafter Verchick ‘438) in view of Loubser (US 2006/0241476, hereinafter Loubser ‘476).
In re claim 1, Verchick ‘438 teaches a probe holder for an ultrasound imaging system, comprising: an upper holding portion, wherein the upper holding portion comprises a first cavity formed by a surrounding an inner surface, an upper end of the first cavity comprises an upper opening, the inner surface contracts inward at a lower end of the first cavity to form a lower opening, and the size of the lower opening is smaller than the size of the upper opening (fig. 3, 310 can be divided into upper holding portion as shown, para 0079, the conical shape will have smaller diameter from top to the bottom, hence, any section of the middle will have smaller than the size of the top/upper); a lower holding portion, wherein the lower holding portion comprises a second cavity formed by the inner surface passing through the lower opening and continuing to extend downward by a certain distance, the inner surface contracts inward at a lower end of the second cavity to form a bottom opening, and the size of the bottom opening is smaller than the size of the lower opening (fig. 3, 310 can be divided into the lower holding portion as shown, para 0079, similarly, the bottom opening will have smaller size than the middle section/lower opening); and a side opening, wherein the side opening penetrates outward through the probe holder from the inner surface, and extends from the upper opening to the bottom opening (fig. 3, 320 is the side opening, para 0079).
Verchick ‘438 fails to teach wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.
Note that Applicant’s “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line” is show in Applicant’s fig. 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
1090
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whereas BCD tapers inward at a curvature, and DE tapers inward along a straight line.
Hence, Loubser ‘476 teaches the same, “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.” See fig. 12C and 13C.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
660
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Loubser ‘476 teaches “holder base 105 has a generally similar shape as that of inner shell 60.” See para 0067-0070. When the shell 60 is show as 60C, the conical shape (see para 0065 and figs. 12c and 13c), the holder will comprise “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Verchick ‘438 to include the features of Loubser ‘476 in order to allow the glove liner to snugly fit into the holder to properly hold the probe in secure position.
In re claim 2, Verchick ‘438 teaches wherein: the first cavity and the second cavity each have a continuous and smooth inner surface, the first cavity is configured to hold a probe of a first size, the second cavity is configured to hold a probe of a second size, and the second size is smaller than the first size (fig. 3, para 0079, the conical shape is continuous and smooth inner surface and that the first cavity is having a larger size than the second cavity).
In re claim 3, Verchick ‘438 teaches wherein: an inner surface of the first cavity comprises a circular arc structure that gradually contracts from the upper opening to the lower opening, and a part of the circular arc structure close to the lower opening has a reduced curvature (fig. 3, with conical shape, the inner diameter is smaller as it goes to the bottom, hence the circular arc which is the inner diameter made of inner circumference of the surface is gradually contracts, and the middle section that which is the lower opening will have a smaller curvature than the upper/to opening).
In re claim 4, Verchick ‘438 teaches wherein: the size of a part of the inner surface of the first cavity close to the upper opening gradually increases to form a probe guide portion (fig. 3, with conical shape, the upper/top has larger diameter than the lower part, then any lower part from the upper opening will have gradually decreased diameter/size, and in reverse, these will gradually increase when it gets closer to the upper opening).
In re claim 5, Verchick ‘438 teaches wherein: an inner surface of the second cavity contracts inward along a straight line to form a cylindrical structure having a gradually decreasing inner diameter (fig. 3, again, the inner diameter is smaller as it goes to the bottom, hence the circular arc which is the inner diameter made of inner circumference of the surface is gradually contracts, and the shape of 310 is a cylindrical structure with decreasing inner diameter).
In re claim 10, Verchick ‘438 teaches further comprising: an elastic body, wherein the elastic body comprises the upper holding portion, the lower holding portion, and the side opening, the elastic body is detachably mounted in a body of the probe holder, and the size of an outer surface of the elastic body matches the size of an inner surface of the body of the probe holder (fig. 3, 0079, note that a compression sleeve is an elastic body, 0081, note that neoprene is a rubber which is an elastic material, if under the interpretation that the probe body is the elastic body).
Claim(s) 1-7, 9, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidwell et al. (US 5,673,696, hereinafter Bidwell ‘696) in view of Loubser ‘476.
In re claims 1, and 15, Bidwell ‘696 teaches an ultrasound imaging system, comprising: a probe comprising a transducer configured to transmit and receive an ultrasound signal (col. 3, lines 35-49); a probe holder (fig. 2, col. 4, lines 13-36; fig. 6/7, col. 5, lines 11-26) comprising: an upper holding portion (again like fig. 3 of Verchick ‘438, fig. 7 when combined with fig.2, the 66 can be divided top half and bottom half), wherein the upper holding portion comprises a first cavity formed by a surrounding an inner surface, an upper end of the first cavity comprises an upper opening, the inner surface contracts inward at a lower end of the first cavity to form a lower opening, and the size of the lower opening is smaller than the size of the upper opening (fig. 6, is radially inward, i.e. inside of 68 is conical shape; fig. 7, holder 132 slant radially inward, hence, again inside of 68 is a conical shape, at the middle of the section of 66, the size of the middle will be smaller than the top at 62 due to the slant); a lower holding portion (again like fig. 3 of Verchick ‘438, fig. 7 when combined with fig.2, the 66 can be divided top half and bottom half), wherein the lower holding portion comprises a second cavity formed by the inner surface passing through the lower opening and continuing to extend downward by a certain distance, the inner surface contracts inward at a lower end of the second cavity to form a bottom opening, and the size of the bottom opening is smaller than the size of the lower opening (holder 132 slant radially inward, hence, at the middle of the section of 66, the size of the bottom at 64 will be smaller than the middle section of 62 due to the slant inward or radially inward); and a side opening, wherein the side opening penetrates outward through the probe holder from the inner surface, and extends from the upper opening to the bottom opening (fig. 2, fig. 6, 7, 76).
Bidwell ‘696 fails to teach wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.
Note that Applicant’s “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line” is show in Applicant’s fig. 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
1090
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whereas BCD tapers inward at a curvature, and DE tapers inward along a straight line.
Hence, Loubser ‘476 teaches the same, “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.” See fig. 12C and 13C.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
660
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Loubser ‘476 teaches “holder base 105 has a generally similar shape as that of inner shell 60.” See para 0067-0070. When the shell 60 is show as 60C, the conical shape (see para 0065 and figs. 12c and 13c), the holder will comprise “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Bidwell ‘696 to include the features of Loubser ‘476 in order to allow the glove liner to snugly fit into the holder to properly hold the probe in secure position.
In re claim 2, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein: the first cavity and the second cavity each have a continuous and smooth inner surface, the first cavity is configured to hold a probe of a first size, the second cavity is configured to hold a probe of a second size, and the second size is smaller than the first size (fig. 6/7, col. 5, lines 11-26, the conical shape is continuous and smooth inner surface and that the first cavity is having a larger size than the second cavity).
In re claim 3, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein: an inner surface of the first cavity comprises a circular arc structure that gradually contracts from the upper opening to the lower opening, and a part of the circular arc structure close to the lower opening has a reduced curvature (fig. 6/7, col. 5, lines 11-26, the inner diameter is smaller as it goes to the bottom, hence the circular arc which is the inner diameter made of inner circumference of the surface is gradually contracts, and the middle section that which is the lower opening will have a smaller curvature than the upper/to opening).
In re claim 4, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein: the size of a part of the inner surface of the first cavity close to the upper opening gradually increases to form a probe guide portion (fig. 6/7, col. 5, lines 11-26, with conical shape, the upper/top has larger diameter than the lower part, then any lower part from the upper opening will have gradually decreased diameter/size, and in reverse, these will gradually increase when it gets closer to the upper opening).
In re claim 5, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein: an inner surface of the second cavity contracts inward along a straight line to form a cylindrical structure having a gradually decreasing inner diameter (fig. 6/7, col. 5, lines 11-26, again, the inner diameter is smaller as it goes to the bottom, hence the circular arc which is the inner diameter made of inner circumference of the surface is gradually contracts, and the shape of 66 is a cylindrical structure with decreasing inner diameter).
In re claim 6, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein: the bottom opening comprises a stepped structure (fig. 8, 236, 238).
In re claim 7, Bidwell ‘696 teaches further comprising: a cable recess, wherein the cable recess is formed by the inner surface extending outward from the bottom opening to the upper opening, and the cable recess obliquely extends substantially along a straight line from the bottom opening to the upper opening (fig. 7, 142).
In re claim 9, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein: an extension depth of the cable recess at the bottom opening end is greater than the diameter of the bottom opening (fig. 7, 142, the depth of A pointing to is greater than the diameter of B pointing too).
PNG
media_image4.png
560
722
media_image4.png
Greyscale
In re claim 13, Bidwell ‘696 teaches providing at an edge of a control panel of the ultrasound imaging system (fig. 4).
In re claim 14, Bidwell ‘696 teaches detachably connecting to a main body of the ultrasound imaging system (fig. 2, col. 4, lines 23-36).
In re claim 16, Bidwell ‘696 teaches wherein the probe holder comprises a plurality of probe holders provided at an edge of a control panel of the ultrasound imaging system, and the plurality of probe holders have shapes that are the same as or symmetrical to each other (fig. 4).
Claim(s) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bidwell ‘696 and Loubser ‘476 in view of Verchick ’438.
In re claim 10, Bidwell ‘696 fails to teach an elastic body, wherein the elastic body comprises an upper holding portion, a lower holding portion, and a side opening, the elastic body is detachably mounted in a body of the probe holder, and a size of an outer surface of the elastic body matches a size of an inner surface of the body of the probe holder
Verchick ‘438 teaches further comprising: an elastic body, wherein the elastic body comprises the upper holding portion, the lower holding portion, and the side opening, the elastic body is detachably mounted in a body of the probe holder, and the size of an outer surface of the elastic body matches the size of an inner surface of the body of the probe holder (fig. 3, 0079, note that a compression sleeve is an elastic body, 0081, note that neoprene is a rubber which is an elastic material, note that this sleeve can be insert into another case 230, see fig. 5). And that as shown above, both Bidwell ‘696 and Verchick ‘548 has a conical shape structure; hence, the sleeve of Verchick ‘548 can obviously to insert into Bidwell ‘696. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Bidwell ‘696 to include the features of Verchick ‘548 in order to protect the probe from scratches and allow tighter fit while probe is being placed into the holder.
In re claim 11, Loubser ‘476 further teaches a top portion of the elastic body comprises a convex edge (fig. 5B, fig. 13B, 0070; 70, and 100)., a bottom portion of the elastic body comprises a plurality of protrusions (fig. 13B, bottom of 60B is outside of the holder 105, which are considered as plurality of protrusions), and the elastic body engages with the inner surface of the body of the probe holder by means of the convex edge and the plurality of protrusions (fig. 5B, fig. 13B, 0070; 70, and 100).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Bidwell ‘696 and Loubser ‘476 to include the features of Verchick ‘548 in order to protect the probe from scratches and allow tighter fit while probe is being placed into the holder, and to include the features of Loubser ‘476 in order to isolate or separate a contaminated handle of probe from any other structures.
Claim(s) 13-14 s/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Verchick ’438.
In re claim 13, the device of Verchick ’438’s fig. 3 is capable of or obviously be able to be adapted to providing at an edge of a control panel of the ultrasound imaging system through 330, and 160 when the edge of a control panel is a flat and fitted surface which is design dependent.
In re claim 14, the device of Verchick ’438’s fig. 3 is capable of or obviously be able to be adapted to detachably connecting to a main body of the ultrasound imaging system through 330, and 160. The hole can be screwed into a main body.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on January 08, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s argument that:
none of the upper holding portions of the probe holders of FIGs. 2 and 6 are tapered inwards, let alone at a varying rate. In addition, neither of the lower portions of the probe holders of FIG. 2 and 6 are tapered inwards. In view of the above, Verchick and Bidwell fail to disclose or suggest each and every feature of claim 1 and 15. Loubser is referenced to disclose features of the dependent claims, but fails to cure the above deficiencies of Verchick and Bidwell.
The Examiner disagrees.
Applicant’s “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line” is show in Applicant’s fig. 3:
PNG
media_image1.png
1090
880
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Whereas BCD tapers inward at a curvature, and DE tapers inward along a straight line.
Hence, Loubser ‘476 teaches the same, “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.” See fig. 12C and 13C.
[AltContent: rect]
PNG
media_image2.png
660
388
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
410
460
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Loubser ‘476 teaches “holder base 105 has a generally similar shape as that of inner shell 60.” See para 0067-0070. When the shell 60 is show as 60C, the conical shape (see para 0065 and figs. 12c and 13c), the holder will comprise “wherein the inner surface of the upper holding portion tapers inward at a curvature, and the inner surface of the lower holding portion tapers inward along a straight line.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Verchick ‘438 or Bidwell ‘696 to include the features of Loubser ‘476 in order to allow the glove liner to snugly fit into the holder to properly hold the probe in secure position.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 is 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, and if all 112 rejection is being resolved.
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 BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797