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
The proposed reply filed on 05/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-16 and 18-21 remain pending in the current application. The amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections.
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) 1-7, 10, 12, 14-16, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheljaskow et al. (US 2005/0193820) in the view of Jin et al. (US 2023/0233183).
Regarding claim 1, Sheljaskow teaches an ultrasound system comprising (para. 0020; a system 10 for detecting damage risk or preventing damage in a handheld electronic device 12.):
an ultrasound probe including a transducer configured to acquire ultrasound data of a region of interest of a subject (figure 3, para. 0025; a processor 16 as well as a wobbler drive 26 connected with a movable transducer array 24 are provided. Any now known or later developed wobbler probes may be used. In response to control signals from the processor 16, the drive 26 is operable to move the transducer array 24 back and forth past a center position shown in solid lines to acquire imaging planes at different positions within a volume.); and
one or more processors configured to (para. 0025; processor 16 as well as a wobbler drive 26 connected with a movable transducer array 24 are provided.):
detect a non-usage trigger indicative of non-usage of the ultrasound probe for acquiring the ultrasound data of the region of interest of the subject (paras. 0035-0036; the motion sensor 18 in conjunction with the processor 16 detects a drop or other potential damage indicator during the event in order to prepare for and prevent damage. The processor 16 is operable to control the wobbler drive 26 to position the transducer array 24 in response to detected drop information output from the accelerometer. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The examiner notes that the processor detects a non-usage trigger indicating that the probe is not scanning or is dropped and is not imaging the region of interest.); and
control the transducer of the ultrasound probe to move from a neutral position to an offset position based on detecting the non-usage trigger (paras. 0035-0036; The processor 16 is the control processor for the drive 26 or a separate processor. The processor 16 is operable to control the wobbler drive 26 to position the transducer array 24 in response to detected drop information output from the accelerometer. he detection software overrides the scanning protocol and parks the transducer array 24. In response to a near zero-gravity signal or other acceleration associated with the likelihood of damage, the wobbler drive 26 positions the transducer array 24 in response to the detected drop or likely damage. For example, the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. In another embodiment, the transducer array 24 is designed with a dock at one or both ends of the array travel, which enclose and brace the array against impact. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The examiner notes that the processor controls the driver to move the transducer from a center position to an offset (edge) position based on detecting a non-usage trigger.).
However, Sheljaskow fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system or a disconnection of the ultrasound probe from a console of the ultrasound system.
Jin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system or a disconnection of the ultrasound probe from a console of the ultrasound system (paras. 0116-0117 and 0120; The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 receives a user input for using at least one of a plurality of wireless ultrasound probes (operation S810). According to an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a user input interface for receiving a user input. The user input interface may include hardware components such as a key pad, a mouse, a trackball, a touch pad, a touch screen, and a jog switch, but are not limited thereto. In operation S810, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may receive a user input of selecting the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 among the plurality of wireless ultrasound probes via the user input interface. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 transmits an activation signal to the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 (operation S820). In this case, an “activation signal” is a signal for operating the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 selected based on the user input to transmit ultrasound signals to an object and receive ultrasound echo signals reflected from the object. The activation signal is different from a pairing signal (operation 521 of FIG. 5) for simply connecting the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 with the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 in a wireless manner. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 displays the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 to be distinguished from the unselected other wireless ultrasound probes (operation S840). In an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a display configure to display a UI indicating ID information and thumbnail images of the wireless ultrasound probes including the first wireless ultrasound probe 201. The display may display the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 that has transmitted the activation signal and the ultrasound emission preparation signal to be distinguished from the other wireless ultrasound probes, e. g., by using a different color, by adding a shade therein, or by displaying ID information in bold characters. The examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that selection of one probe necessarily results in the remaining probes, including any previously selected probe, becoming unselected and not activated/used for performing the ultrasound imaging. Thus, the user input selecting one probe inherently deselects the other probes for performing ultrasound imaging, while activation signal is transmitted only to the selected probe and the remaining probes remain inactive (not scanning) until selected by a subsequent user input.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein, in the neutral position, a longitudinal axis of the transducer is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the ultrasound probe (figure 3, para. 0036; the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. The examiner notes that the natural position is the transducer at center position which is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the probe as shown in figure 3.).
Regarding claim 3, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein, in the offset position, a longitudinal axis of the transducer is substantially offset from a longitudinal axis of the ultrasound probe (figure 3, para. 0036; the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. The examiner notes that the offset position is the transducer at endpoint position which is offset from a longitudinal axis of the probe as shown in figure 3.).
Regarding claim 4, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is the user input, via the user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system.
Jin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system (paras. 0116-0117 and 0120; The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 receives a user input for using at least one of a plurality of wireless ultrasound probes (operation S810). According to an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a user input interface for receiving a user input. The user input interface may include hardware components such as a key pad, a mouse, a trackball, a touch pad, a touch screen, and a jog switch, but are not limited thereto. In operation S810, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may receive a user input of selecting the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 among the plurality of wireless ultrasound probes via the user input interface. The examiner notes that the user is able to select and deselect probes for usage and non-usage).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 5, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that selects another ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system.
Jin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, of another ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system (paras. 0116-0117 and 0120; The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 receives a user input for using at least one of a plurality of wireless ultrasound probes (operation S810). According to an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a user input interface for receiving a user input. The user input interface may include hardware components such as a key pad, a mouse, a trackball, a touch pad, a touch screen, and a jog switch, but are not limited thereto. In operation S810, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may receive a user input of selecting the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 among the plurality of wireless ultrasound probes via the user input interface. The examiner notes that the user is able to select and deselect probes for usage and non-usage).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 6, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a positioning of the ultrasound probe in a probe holder of the ultrasound system.
Jin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is a positioning of the ultrasound probe in a probe holder of the ultrasound system (paras. 0083 and 0089-0090; the wireless ultrasound probe 200 transmits, to the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100, insert information indicating its insertion into the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 (operation S510). In an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a holder into which the wireless ultrasound probe 200 is inserted. When the wireless ultrasound probe 200 is placed in the holder, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may receive insert information and recognize the wireless ultrasound probe 200 placed therein based on the received insert information. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 displays a UI indicating the received status information regarding the wireless ultrasound probe 200 (operation S540). he ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 transmits a beamforming control signal to the wireless ultrasound probe 200 (operation S550). According to an embodiment, the wireless ultrasound probe 200 may be an ultrasound probe having a beamformer therein, and the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may transmit to the wireless ultrasound probe 200 a signal for controlling the beamformer provided in the wireless ultrasound probe 200 to irradiate ultrasound signals towards an object by using a wireless communication method. The examiner notes that the system identifies the probe not being used if it was received in a probe holder.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include non-usage detection based on positioning of the ultrasound probe in a probe holder of the ultrasound system. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 7, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein the non-usage trigger is an absence of contact between the subject and the ultrasound probe (paras. 0035-0036; the motion sensor 18 in conjunction with the processor 16 detects a drop or other potential damage indicator during the event in order to prepare for and prevent damage. For example, the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. In another embodiment, the transducer array 24 is designed with a dock at one or both ends of the array travel, which enclose and brace the array against impact. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion.).
Regarding claim 10, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein the non-usage trigger is a position of the ultrasound probe relative to the ultrasound system (paras. 0029 and 0035; The accelerometer is operable to detect a drop or a shock. For example, if the transducer probe 23 is dropped, the transducer probe 23 experiences substantially or near zero gravity in the brief interval prior to impact. The motion sensor 18 in conjunction with the processor 16 detects a drop or other potential damage indicator during the event in order to prepare for and prevent damage. For example, the processor 16 determines that the motion sensor 18 has indicated a near zero-gravity signal for a threshold amount of time, such as greater than 100 milliseconds. The threshold is set to provide time to position the transducer array 24 prior to impact. For example, the device may fall 5 centimeters in the first 100 milliseconds, 15 centimeters in a second 100 milliseconds, 24 centimeters in a third 100 milliseconds, and so on. At some point, the acceleration indicates a near zero-gravity signal. For example, the outputs of the three orthogonal accelerometers may each read close to zero g (say .+-.0.1 g) for a duration of at least 50 milliseconds. The examiner notes when the ultrasound is dropped, ultrasound probe is at a position further from the ultrasound system and closer to the ground. Thus, the processor detects the position of the probe to determine a non-usage trigger.).
Regarding claim 12, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasound probe is configured to maintain the transducer in the offset position after the ultrasound probe is disconnected from a console of the ultrasound system (paras. 0036-0037, 0041, and 0046; the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. In another embodiment, the transducer array 24 is designed with a dock at one or both ends of the array travel, which enclose and brace the array against impact. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The transducer cable of the transducer probe 23 may connect with a connector housing that also includes electronics. The connector housing releasably attaches to an ultrasound imaging system. In one embodiment, the drop is detected by matching an acceleration curve to an acceleration likely associated with a drop, taking into account any of various factors such as the connection of a cable. The examiner notes that a non-usage trigger (drop) of the probe is detected based on acceleration data and connection/disconnection of the cable to the ultrasound imaging system. In response to non-usage trigger detection, the driver moves the transducer to offset position and dock the transducer in this position until a usage trigger is detected.).
Regarding claim 14, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: detect a usage trigger indicative of usage of the ultrasound probe for acquiring the ultrasound data of the region of interest of the subject (paras. 0025 and 0036; In response to control signals from the processor 16, the drive 26 is operable to move the transducer array 24 back and forth past a center position shown in solid lines to acquire imaging planes at different positions within a volume. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. If the array 24 is currently being used, the movement may be provided in a span of a hundred or a few hundreds of milliseconds. As a result, the transducer array 24 is less likely to be damaged if an exterior lens cap is dented or otherwise contacts a surface during a drop. The user may then manually reset the transducer before continuing, answering a prompt to inspect for damage before proceeding.); and control the transducer of the ultrasound probe to move from the offset position to the neutral position based on detecting the usage trigger (paras. 0025 and 0036; In response to control signals from the processor 16, the drive 26 is operable to move the transducer array 24 back and forth past a center position shown in solid lines to acquire imaging planes at different positions within a volume. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. If the array 24 is currently being used, the movement may be provided in a span of a hundred or a few hundreds of milliseconds. As a result, the transducer array 24 is less likely to be damaged if an exterior lens cap is dented or otherwise contacts a surface during a drop. The user may then manually reset the transducer before continuing, answering a prompt to inspect for damage before proceeding.).
Regarding claim 15, Sheljaskow teach an ultrasound probe comprising (figure 3, para. 0025; wobbler probes):
a transducer configured to: acquire ultrasound data of a region of interest of a subject (figure 3, para. 0025; a processor 16 as well as a wobbler drive 26 connected with a movable transducer array 24 are provided. Any now known or later developed wobbler probes may be used. For example, the drive 26 is a stepper or DC motor connected through gearing, other linkages or directly to a rotatable arm connected with the transducer array 24. In response to control signals from the processor 16, the drive 26 is operable to move the transducer array 24 back and forth past a center position shown in solid lines to acquire imaging planes at different positions within a volume.);
move from a neutral position to an offset position based on a detection of a non-usage trigger indicative of non-usage of the ultrasound probe for acquiring the ultrasound data of the region of interest of the subject (paras. 0035-0036; The processor 16 is operable to control the wobbler drive 26 to position the transducer array 24 in response to detected drop information output from the accelerometer. The detection software overrides the scanning protocol and parks the transducer array 24. In response to a near zero-gravity signal or other acceleration associated with the likelihood of damage, the wobbler drive 26 positions the transducer array 24 in response to the detected drop or likely damage. For example, the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. In another embodiment, the transducer array 24 is designed with a dock at one or both ends of the array travel. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The examiner notes that the processor controls the driver to move the transducer from a center position to an offset (edge) position based on detecting a non-usage trigger.); and
move from the offset position to the neutral position based on a detection of a usage trigger indicative of usage of the ultrasound probe for acquiring the ultrasound data of the region of interest of the subject (paras. 0025 and 0036; If the array 24 is currently being used, the movement may be provided in a span of a hundred or a few hundreds of milliseconds. in response to control signals from the processor 16, the drive 26 is operable to move the transducer array 24 back and forth past a center position shown in solid lines to acquire imaging planes at different positions within a volume.).
However, Sheljaskow fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system or a disconnection of the ultrasound probe from a console of the ultrasound system.
Jin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system or a disconnection of the ultrasound probe from a console of the ultrasound system (paras. 0116-0117 and 0120; The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 receives a user input for using at least one of a plurality of wireless ultrasound probes (operation S810). According to an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a user input interface for receiving a user input. The user input interface may include hardware components such as a key pad, a mouse, a trackball, a touch pad, a touch screen, and a jog switch, but are not limited thereto. In operation S810, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may receive a user input of selecting the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 among the plurality of wireless ultrasound probes via the user input interface. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 transmits an activation signal to the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 (operation S820). In this case, an “activation signal” is a signal for operating the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 selected based on the user input to transmit ultrasound signals to an object and receive ultrasound echo signals reflected from the object. The activation signal is different from a pairing signal (operation 521 of FIG. 5) for simply connecting the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 with the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 in a wireless manner. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 displays the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 to be distinguished from the unselected other wireless ultrasound probes (operation S840). In an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a display configure to display a UI indicating ID information and thumbnail images of the wireless ultrasound probes including the first wireless ultrasound probe 201. The display may display the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 that has transmitted the activation signal and the ultrasound emission preparation signal to be distinguished from the other wireless ultrasound probes, e. g., by using a different color, by adding a shade therein, or by displaying ID information in bold characters. The examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that selection of one probe necessarily results in the remaining probes, including any previously selected probe, becoming unselected and not activated/used for performing the ultrasound imaging. Thus, the user input selecting one probe inherently deselects the other probes for performing ultrasound imaging, while activation signal is transmitted only to the selected probe and the remaining probes remain inactive (not scanning) until selected by a subsequent user input.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 16, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound probe of claim 15, wherein, in the neutral position, a longitudinal axis of the transducer is substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the ultrasound probe (figure 3, para. 0036; the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. The examiner notes that the natural position is the transducer at center position which is parallel to a longitudinal axis of the probe as shown in figure 3.), and wherein, in the offset position, a longitudinal axis of the transducer is substantially offset from a longitudinal axis of the ultrasound probe (figure 3, para. 0036; the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. The examiner notes that the offset position is the transducer at endpoint position which is offset from a longitudinal axis of the probe as shown in figure 3.).
Regarding claim 18, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound probe of claim 15, further comprising: a movement device configured to move the transducer from the neutral position to the offset position (figure 3, element 26, paras. 0025 and 0035-0036; the wobbler drive 26 positions the transducer array 24 in response to the detected drop or likely damage. For example, the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines.).
Regarding claim 19, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound probe of claim 15, wherein the ultrasound probe is configured to maintain the transducer in the offset position after the ultrasound probe is disconnected from a console of an ultrasound system or after the ultrasound system is powered off (paras. 0036-0037, 0041, and 0046; the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. In another embodiment, the transducer array 24 is designed with a dock at one or both ends of the array travel, which enclose and brace the array against impact. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The transducer cable of the transducer probe 23 may connect with a connector housing that also includes electronics. The connector housing releasably attaches to an ultrasound imaging system. In one embodiment, the drop is detected by matching an acceleration curve to an acceleration likely associated with a drop, taking into account any of various factors such as the connection of a cable. The examiner notes that a non-usage trigger (drop) of the probe is detected based on acceleration data and connection/disconnection of the cable to the ultrasound imaging system. In response to non-usage trigger detection, the driver moves the transducer to offset position and dock the transducer in this position until a usage trigger is detected.).
Regarding claim 20, Sheljaskow teaches an ultrasound system comprising (para. 0020; a system 10 for detecting damage risk or preventing damage in a handheld electronic device 12.):
a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to (paras. 0023 and 0026; the active electronics 20 include a memory and associated software on a processor for providing time, calendar, contact or other information.):
detect a non-usage trigger indicative of non-usage of an ultrasound probe for acquiring ultrasound data of a region of interest of a subject (paras. 0035-0036; the motion sensor 18 in conjunction with the processor 16 detects a drop or other potential damage indicator during the event in order to prepare for and prevent damage. The processor 16 is operable to control the wobbler drive 26 to position the transducer array 24 in response to detected drop information output from the accelerometer. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The examiner notes that the processor detects a non-usage trigger indicating that the probe is not scanning or is dropped and is not imaging the region of interest.); and
control the transducer of the ultrasound probe to move from a neutral position to an offset position based on detecting the non-usage trigger (paras. 0035-0036; The processor 16 is the control processor for the drive 26 or a separate processor. The processor 16 is operable to control the wobbler drive 26 to position the transducer array 24 in response to detected drop information output from the accelerometer. he detection software overrides the scanning protocol and parks the transducer array 24. In response to a near zero-gravity signal or other acceleration associated with the likelihood of damage, the wobbler drive 26 positions the transducer array 24 in response to the detected drop or likely damage. For example, the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines. In another embodiment, the transducer array 24 is designed with a dock at one or both ends of the array travel, which enclose and brace the array against impact. The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion. The examiner notes that the processor controls the driver to move the transducer from a center position to an offset (edge) position based on detecting a non-usage trigger.).
However, Sheljaskow fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system or a disconnection of the ultrasound probe from a console of the ultrasound system.
Jin, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that de-selects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging via the ultrasound system or a disconnection of the ultrasound probe from a console of the ultrasound system (paras. 0116-0117 and 0120; The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 receives a user input for using at least one of a plurality of wireless ultrasound probes (operation S810). According to an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a user input interface for receiving a user input. The user input interface may include hardware components such as a key pad, a mouse, a trackball, a touch pad, a touch screen, and a jog switch, but are not limited thereto. In operation S810, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may receive a user input of selecting the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 among the plurality of wireless ultrasound probes via the user input interface. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 transmits an activation signal to the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 (operation S820). In this case, an “activation signal” is a signal for operating the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 selected based on the user input to transmit ultrasound signals to an object and receive ultrasound echo signals reflected from the object. The activation signal is different from a pairing signal (operation 521 of FIG. 5) for simply connecting the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 with the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 in a wireless manner. The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 displays the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 to be distinguished from the unselected other wireless ultrasound probes (operation S840). In an embodiment, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include a display configure to display a UI indicating ID information and thumbnail images of the wireless ultrasound probes including the first wireless ultrasound probe 201. The display may display the first wireless ultrasound probe 201 that has transmitted the activation signal and the ultrasound emission preparation signal to be distinguished from the other wireless ultrasound probes, e. g., by using a different color, by adding a shade therein, or by displaying ID information in bold characters. The examiner notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that selection of one probe necessarily results in the remaining probes, including any previously selected probe, becoming unselected and not activated/used for performing the ultrasound imaging. Thus, the user input selecting one probe inherently deselects the other probes for performing ultrasound imaging, while activation signal is transmitted only to the selected probe and the remaining probes remain inactive (not scanning) until selected by a subsequent user input.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow to incorporate the teachings of Jin to additionally include trigger signals based on a user input selecting/deselecting one of the probe for imaging. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 21, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasound probe comprises (figure 3, element 12, para. 0021; The handheld electronic device 12 is a transducer probe housing a transducer array):
a housing (fig. 3, element 22, para. 0027; the housing 22 is a probe housing at least partially housing the transducer array 24. For example, the probe housing 22 includes a plastic or resin housing with a polymer, glass, plastic or other material for providing an acoustic window adjacent to the transducer array 24. Different portions of the housing 22 may be flexible, brittle or more susceptible to damage. The probe housing 22 also encloses any active electronics 20 (e.g. the processor 16 or other electronics).);
a support configured to support a rotational frame (para. 0025; For example, the drive 26 is a stepper or DC motor connected through gearing, other linkages or directly to a rotatable arm connected with the transducer array 24.);
the rotational frame that is connected to the transducer (para. 0025; For example, the drive 26 is a stepper or DC motor connected through gearing, other linkages or directly to a rotatable arm connected with the transducer array 24.);
a wire that connects the rotational frame to a rotational device (para. 0025; For example, the drive 26 is a stepper or DC motor connected through gearing, other linkages or directly to a rotatable arm connected with the transducer array 24. In response to control signals from the processor 16, the drive 26 is operable to move the transducer array 24 back and forth past a center position shown in solid lines to acquire imaging planes at different positions within a volume. The examiner interprets the other linkages connecting the driver motor to the rotational arm as a pully wire or a cable used to mechanically couple the motor to the rotational arm.); and
the rotational device that is configured to rotate the rotational frame via the wire, and wherein the one or more processors are configured to control the rotational device of the ultrasound probe to rotate the rotational frame to move the transducer from the neutral position to the offset position (paras. 0035-0036; The processor 16 is the control processor for the drive 26 or a separate processor. The processor 16 is operable to control the wobbler drive 26 to position the transducer array 24 in response to detected drop information output from the accelerometer. he detection software overrides the scanning protocol and parks the transducer array 24. In response to a near zero-gravity signal or other acceleration associated with the likelihood of damage, the wobbler drive 26 positions the transducer array 24 in response to the detected drop or likely damage. For example, the transducer array 24 is moved from a center position shown in solid lines to a position associated with the endpoints of its sweep, such as shown by the dashed lines.).
Claim(s) 8-9, 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sheljaskow et al. (US 2005/0193820) in the view of Jin et al. (US 2023/0233183) and in further view of Imai et al. (US 2021/0223375).
Regarding claim 8, Sheljaskow in the view of Jin teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is an absence of an ultrasound image displayed via a display of the ultrasound system.
Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is an absence of an ultrasound image displayed via a display of the ultrasound system (paras. 0024 and 0034; A transition from the freeze state 208 to the sleep state 212 where the system is not acquiring ultrasound data or showing images on a video monitor occurs if any of conditions 258 are detected. These conditions can include if no motion of the transducer probe or the base unit is detected for more than a defined time limit or if the transducer probe has been left in the air for more than a defined time limit or if no user input has been received for more than a defined time limit. The sleep state 212 further reduces power consumption from the level of the freeze state 208 by disabling the display of images. Images from the transducer are not produced or displayed and further power consuming functions of the system are disabled.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow in the view of Jin to incorporate the teachings of Imai to additionally include non-usage detection based on disabling the display of images. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 9, Sheljaskow in the view of Jin teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a generating of an ultrasound image that includes a quality metric that satisfies a threshold.
Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is a generating of an ultrasound image that includes a quality metric that satisfies a threshold (paras. 0037-0038; f the transducer is placed against a patient's body, then there should be some variation in the echo characteristics in the various sectors depending on the structure of the tissue. If each sector has the same (or nearly the same e.g. +1-5 dB) average amplitude value, then it is likely that the transducer is not placed against a body and the transducer is imaging free space or other non-tissue object. Therefore, in one embodiment, the processor is programmed to detect tissue in an image based on the detected variations in echo characteristics in a received ultrasound frame. As will be appreciated, different intensity thresholds or detecting tissue may be applied if the system is operating in the normal operating state versus a lesser power state because of the reduced transmit voltages, decreased number of channels, lower PRF etc. so that the same test used to identify tissue in the normal power state may not be used to identify tissue in a lesser power state. If no tissue reflection occurs, then the processor can determine that the transducer is likely imaging free space and can enter a lesser power state. The examiner notes that the system determines that the probe is not used for imaging the subject when the image quality satisfies a threshold (tissue not present)).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow in the view of Jin to incorporate the teachings of Imai to additionally include non-usage detection based on image quality metric. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Sheljaskow in the view of Jin teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, however, fails to explicitly teach wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that powers off the ultrasound system.
Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that powers off the ultrasound system (para. 0025; A transition from the freeze state 208 to the power off state 216 where all functions are shut down occurs if one of conditions 262 are detected. Conditions 262 include a power level of a battery dropping below a defined threshold or if a power button has been pressed or activated to an off state or if a timer has elapsed with no movement of the transducer probe or the base unit detected.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow in the view of Jin to incorporate the teachings of Imai to additionally include non-usage detection based on user input that powers off the ultrasound system. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Regarding claim 13, Sheljaskow teaches the ultrasound system of claim 1, wherein the ultrasound probe is configured to maintain the transducer in the offset position after the non-usage trigger (para. 0036; The transducer array 24 is kept docked when the wobbler is not scanning or docked in response to detected motion.).
However, Sheljaskow in the view of Jin fails to explicitly teach that the non-usage trigger is powering off the ultrasound system.
Imai, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the non-usage trigger is a user input, via a user interface, that powers off the ultrasound system (para. 0025; A transition from the freeze state 208 to the power off state 216 where all functions are shut down occurs if one of conditions 262 are detected. Conditions 262 include a power level of a battery dropping below a defined threshold or if a power button has been pressed or activated to an off state or if a timer has elapsed with no movement of the transducer probe or the base unit detected.).
It would have been obvious to one in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the non-usage trigger of Sheljaskow in the view of Jin to incorporate the teachings of Imai to additionally include non-usage detection based on user input that powers off the ultrasound system. These signals are well-recognized indicators that imaging is not being performed and a person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to do so to improve robustness and reliability of non-usage trigger detection under different operating conditions, and because these signals are already generated and processed by ultrasound system controllers for other known purposes such as workflow control, power management, system safety, and user experience. This modification would involve only the predictable use of known system information to indicate probe non-usage and would not require any change to the fundamental operation of the ultrasound system, yielding no unpredictable results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the USC 112(f) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim the USC 112(f) rejection of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 05/07/2026, with respect to the USC 112(b) rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim the USC 112(b) rejection of claim 18 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues that the combination of prior arts fail to disclose or suggest the claimed trigger. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Sheljaskow teaches a protection system for a handheld electronic devices (ultrasound probe) in which motion sensor detects various motion conditions, including shocks resulting from contact, acceleration without contact, rapid acceleration, and acceleration associated with a detected drop or other likelihood of damage. The Sheljaskow further teaches that the transducer array is kept docked in an offset position when the transducer is not scanning or is docked in response to detected motion, thereby explicitly discloses positioning based on non-use conditions in addition to motion based triggers.
Applicant further argue that neither the Sheljaskow reference nor the Jin reference disclose or suggests a user input via a user interface that deselects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging or disconnection of the ultrasound probe from the console. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection relies on the combined teaching to teach the claimed limitation of receiving a user input that deselects the ultrasound probe for performing ultrasound imaging and positioning the transducer array away from the center position in response to the user input. Jin reference teaches receiving a user input selecting one ultrasound probe from a plurality of ultrasound probes for performing imaging. In response to user input, the ultrasound system activates the selected probe and distinguishes the selected probe from the remaining unselected probes. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably understood that selection of one probe results in the remaining probes, including any previously selected probe, becoming unselected and no longer being used for performing ultrasound imaging. Thus, the disclosed user input reasonably corresponds to the claimed user input associated with probe non-use.
Sheljaskow reference teaches maintaining the transducer array in a docked offset position when the transducer is not scanning to protect the transducer from damage. When combined, the references collectively teach all claimed limitations: Jin provides the user input that results in probe(s) becoming unselected (non-use), and Sheljaskow provides the responsive action of positioning the transducer array in an offset position when the probe in not scanning (not in use). A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the user selection information of Jin as an additional input to the control logic of Sheljaskow to determine when the probe is not in use and should be protected. This combination merely involves using an existing signal (probe selection/deselection) to trigger an already known protective function (docking the ultrasound transducer). Such modification would have been a predictable use of prior art element according to their established functions and would have yielded the predictable result of automatically protecting inactive probes from damage. Furthermore, this combination would improve system reliability and reduce the risk of damage of unused probes.
Applicant further argues that the combination fails to disclose or suggest the causality because the Sheljaskow reference teaches detection a drop based on acceleration data and positioning the transducer array away from the center in response to detected drop, whereas the Jin reference merely teaches that a user selects a particular probe and the system activates the selected probe. The applicant argues that the action disclosed in Jin is activation of the ultrasound probe rather than controlling the transducer to move from neutral position to an offset position, and therefore concludes that the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. The examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection does not rely on Jin to teach controlling the transducer to move from neutral position to offset position. Instead, Jin is relied upon for teaching a user input selecting one ultrasound transducer for imaging, whereby the previously selected transducer becomes unselected and is no longer used for imaging. Sheljaskow is relied upon for teaching positioning the transducer in a docked offset position when the transducer is not scanning. It would have been obvious to use the user selection information taught by Jin as an additional non-usage trigger for initiating the known protective docking operation of Sheljaskow. Accordingly, the combination teaches the claimed causal relation.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ZAINAB M ALDARRAJI whose telephone number is (571)272-8726. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday7AM-5PM 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, Carey Michael can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/ZAINAB MOHAMMED ALDARRAJI/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights