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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 27 September 2023. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2023-164714 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It should be appreciated that Applicant was notified on 27 February 2025 that priority document exchange retrieval failed. Applicant still remains responsible for the submission of the certified copy of said foreign application.
Specification
A substitute specification including the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the use of the term “provided” recited through the instant specification and claims is not grammatically correct and is also unclear. For example:
“the external device 20 is provided independently from the ultrasonic probe 10” in ¶ [0041];
“the start request reception unit 241 is provided to the external device 20” in ¶ [0090];
“Thus, when an operation means is provided to the ultrasonic probe 10, an operation may be complex” ¶ [0091];
“when a general computer such as a smartphone and a tablet terminal is used as the external device 20, a storage medium provided to the computer, such as a hard disk and a semiconductor memory, can be used” ¶ [0093];
“In the first embodiment described above, the ultrasonic probe 10 and the external device 20 are provided independently from each other, the external device 20 executed the measurement program, and a user executes the input operation for starting the ultrasonic measurement” ¶ [0145];
“the instruction unit may be provided to the external device” ¶ [0164];
“In the ultrasonic measurement apparatus according to the aspect described above, the storage may be provided to the external device” ¶ [0166];
“When the storage is provided to the ultrasonic sensor, the cost of the ultrasonic sensor is increased” ¶ [0167];
“When the ultrasonic signal is output to the external device, the ultrasonic signal recorded in the storage provided to the ultrasonic sensor may be transmitted” ¶ [0169];
“wherein the processor is provided to the external device” (Claim 4);
“wherein the storage is provided to the external device” (Claim 5); and
“wherein the storage is provided to the ultrasonic sensor” (Claim 6).
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
A substitute specification in proper idiomatic English and in compliance with 37 CFR 1.52(a) and (b) is required. The substitute specification filed must be accompanied by a statement that it contains no new matter.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 objected to because of the following informalities: “an processor” should recite “a processor.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 2 & 4-6 are 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 particular, Claim 4 recites “wherein the processor is provided to the external device” which appears to be a translation error. Idiomatic English would recite “wherein the processor is connected to the external device.” Alternatively, coupled, operatively connected, linked, in communication with, or the like recite similar scope. However, “provided to” is not considered idiomatic English.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the processor is connected to the external device” which the Office believe is commensurate with the instant specification.
Claims 5 & 6 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as claim 4.
With regards to Claim 2, the claim recites “a processor” in line 4; however, antecedent basis for “an [sic] processor” has already been established in parent Claim 1. Therefore it is unclear whether the “processor” of 2 is the same “processor” that has been already established in parent Claim 1.
For the purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation will be interpreted as “the processor.” It should be noted that such an interpretation has not been evaluated for compliance with the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffiths et al. (US PGPUB 20090177050; hereinafter "Griffiths").
With regards to Claim 1, Griffiths discloses an ultrasonic measurement apparatus configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave to a measurement target and receive the ultrasonic wave reflected inside the measurement target (wherein the imaging system is an ultrasound system; see Griffiths; one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a diagnostic imaging system is capable of transceiving ultrasound signals), the ultrasonic measurement apparatus comprising:
an ultrasonic sensor configured to transmit and receive the ultrasonic wave and output an ultrasonic signal by receiving the ultrasonic wave (image sensor; see Griffiths ¶ [0067 & 0093]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that diagnostic imaging ultrasound systems have imaging sensors {i.e. transducers} (image sensor; see Griffiths ¶ [0067 & 0093]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that diagnostic imaging ultrasound systems have imaging sensors {i.e. transducers});
an processor (multiple processors for implementing the state diagram {i.e. FIG. 5}; see Griffiths ¶ [0084]) configured to output a measurement start request for instructing start of the ultrasonic measurement and record the ultrasonic signal in a storage (upon indication from a user, an optional delay state is achieved, when the delay state is satisfied an image is acquired; see Griffiths ¶ [0075]), wherein
the processor records, (once the delay is satisfied, the imager acquires images; see Griffiths ¶ [0075]; it is well known in the art that ultrasound imaging systems save ultrasound signals into memory before/after reconstruction).
While Griffiths discloses an image display and user interface 202 which indicates that the system has memory to transmit the ultrasound image therefrom, it appears that Griffiths may be silent to the struck through limitation above. However, it is well known in the art that ultrasound imaging systems save ultrasound signals into memory before/after reconstruction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Griffiths to provide at least storage. Doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because it is notorious in the art that ultrasound imaging systems record acquired images to memory.
With regards to Claim 61, modified Griffiths teaches of wherein the storage is provided to the ultrasonic sensor (it is well known in the art that ultrasound imaging systems save ultrasound signals into memory before/after reconstruction as detailed with respect to Claim 1).
With regards to Claim 31, while modified Griffiths discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Griffiths may be silent to explicitly teaching comprising: an external device being communicably connected to the ultrasonic sensor.
However, Griffiths teaches that while physical connects are used in the discloses system, wireless communication links are also contemplated (see Griffiths ¶ [0089]). Therefore the communication link between the imager 201 {e.g. ultrasound imager} and the external state control machine 203 {i.e. computer processor} is a wireless communication link rendering the external state control machine 203 as an external device as illustrated in FIG. 2 of Griffiths.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Griffiths to provide at least an external device. Doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because Griffiths already teaches of a wireless communication link.
With regards to Claim 43, modified Griffiths teaches of wherein the processor is provided to the external device (external state control machine 203; see Griffiths FIG. 2 & ¶ [0101]).
With regards to Claim 53, modified Griffiths teaches of wherein the storage is provided to the external device (it is well known in the art that ultrasound imaging systems save ultrasound signals into memory before/after reconstruction as detailed with respect to Claim 1).
With regards to Claim 71, modified Griffiths teaches of comprising:
the ultrasonic sensor starts transmission of the ultrasonic wave and reception of the ultrasonic wave (image sensor; see Griffiths ¶ [0067 & 0093]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that diagnostic imaging ultrasound systems have imaging sensors {i.e. transducers} (image sensor; see Griffiths ¶ [0067 & 0093]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that diagnostic imaging ultrasound systems have imaging sensors {i.e. transducers})
the processor (multiple processors for implementing the state diagram {i.e. FIG. 5}; see Griffiths ¶ [0084]) outputs the measurement start request, based on a change of the ultrasonic signal being output from the ultrasonic sensor (upon indication from a user, an optional delay state is achieved, when the delay state is satisfied an image is acquired; see Griffiths ¶ [0075]).
While Griffiths teaches of power supplies and power conditioners (see Griffiths ¶ [0066 & 0106]), it appears that Griffiths may be silent to the struck-through limitations above. However, Griffiths teaches of a current injector and imager interaction is primarily limited to start synchronization, done currently by means of settable delays and optionally a switch closure signal, and a relay that sends a signal to the imager. The imager then starts acquiring images after the delay of a certain amount of time based upon its control program (see Griffiths ¶ [0014]). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the relay as a switch to initiate power to the ultrasound imager to acquire the corresponding images.
Griffiths also teaches of means of settable delays which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as user interface having full functionality such as the user interface of display 202 for controlling the settable delays (see Griffiths ¶ [0059]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Griffiths to provide at least a switch for controlling a power supply to the ultrasound imager. Doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results because Griffiths already teaches sending a control signal to initiate ultrasound imaging acquisition.
With regards to Claim 21, modified Griffiths teaches of comprising:
a display unit configured to display information (means of settable delays which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as user interface having full functionality such as the user interface of display 202 for controlling the settable delays (see Griffiths ¶ [0014 & 0059]); and
a processor configured to cause the display unit to display a time from a time at which the processor outputs the measurement start request to a time at which the processor starts recording the ultrasonic signal (means {i.e. processor for setting the delay parameter} of settable delays which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as user interface having full functionality such as the user interface of display 202 for controlling the settable delays (see Griffiths ¶ [0014 & 0059]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Asami et al. (US PGPUB 20200200900) – initiating image acquisition after a predetermined delay as illustrated in FIG. 10.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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 on (571) 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.
/ASHISH S JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798