DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on March 4, 2026 concerning application No. 18/899,438 filed on September 27, 2024.
Claims 1-14 are currently pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 regarding the drawings objection have been fully considered. The amendments to the specification have been entered and overcome the drawing objection of fig. 1 previously set forth.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 11 and their dependent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. New reference Nomura is being relied upon to teach the newly filed claim amendments. Shah is no longer relied upon for the rejection of claims 1 and 11. Examiner further notes that by adding newly filed claim amendments to claim 1, the interpretation of claim 8 has changed. Therefore, a new reference, Orringer is being applied to teach the limitations of claim 8 given its new interpretation.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/2026 regarding the new claims have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach new claim 13, examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection of claim 13 below for an explanation of how Kazui in view of Shah is being applied to teach new claim 13.
In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach new claim 14, examiner respectfully disagrees. Please see the rejection of claim 14 below for an explanation of how Kazui in view of Nomura is being applied to teach new claim 14.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “an executor” in claims 1 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. For the purpose of examination and this office action “an executor” is being interpreted as a main body of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus containing processors that executes ultrasound diagnosis or equivalent thereof (see [0036] of the present applications specification). For the purpose of examination and this office action “an AC adopter” is being interpreted as
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 13, lines 4, 5, 7, and 10-11 “AC adopter” should read “AC adapter”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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, 9-12, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazui et al. (US 20200297325, hereinafter Kazui) in view of Nomura (JP2015145099A).
Regarding claim 1, Kazui teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0033] ultrasonic diagnostic system 1A in fig. 1), comprising:
an executor that is configured to execute ultrasound diagnosis ([0034] ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 10A in fig. 1 executes ultrasound diagnosis);
a battery that is configured to supply electric power to the executor ([0040] battery 18 supplies power to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus); and
a hardware processor (the electronic circuitry of system 1A in fig. 1) that is connectable to both a first power source and a second power source (fig. 1 shows the electronic circuitry of the system 1A is connected to a second battery 33 and a plug 32a/AC adaptor 32 of power supply 30A, each of which are considered a power source), and is configured to perform control such that amounts or an amount of the electric power to be supplied to the executor and/or the battery are/is varied according to electric power supplying capability of a power source that is the first power source or the second power source and has been connected ([0069] discloses supplying the source power to each of the components of the apparatus 10A and the battery 18. The source power corresponds to the power being transmitted from the power supply 30A, see [0038]. [0066] further discloses switching off supplying power to the battery 18 while maintaining power supply to the apparatus (executor) when the power is being transmitted from the battery 33, thereby varying the amount of power being supplied to the executor and battery according to the power supply capability of the power source), the first power source configured to supply the electric power to the executor and the battery ([0065] disclose supplying power to the battery 18 and the apparatus using battery 33), the second power source configured to supply the electric power to the executor and the battery ([0068] discloses supplying power to the battery 18 and the apparatus using AC adapter 32 and plug 32a),
wherein the second power source includes an AC adapter (fig. 1 discloses plug 32a/AC adaptor 32 which represents the second power source).
Kazui does not specifically teach the second power source has suppliable electric power larger than suppliable electric power of the first power source and the first power source includes a first AC adapter, and the second power source includes a second AC adapter.
However,
Nomura in a similar field of providing multiple power sources to an apparatus discloses the second power source has suppliable electric power larger than suppliable electric power of the first power source ([0048] discloses the output of the first AC adapter 111 (second power source) is 5Amps while the output of the second AC adapter 112 (first power source) is 3Amps, therefore the suppliable electric power of the second power source is larger than that of the first power source) and the first power source includes a first AC adapter, and the second power source includes a second AC adapter ([0048] discloses the external power source includes AC adapter 111 (second power source) and AC adapter 112 (first power source)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kazui to have the second power source have suppliable electric power larger than suppliable electric power of the first power source and the first power source includes a first AC adapter, and the second power source includes a second AC adapter in order to ensure the apparatus is receiving enough power to perform the desired process, as recognized by Nomura ([0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 2, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches a sensor that is configured to detect information on the electric power supplying capability of the power source that has been connected ([0064]-[0068] discloses the controller 11A (sensor) determines the presence and capability of the source power being input), wherein
the hardware processor that is configured to control, based on the information that has been detected, the amount or the amount of the electric power to be supplied ([0067] discloses supplying power to the components of the apparatus 10A based on the capability of the power source).
Regarding claim 3, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches the information is an electric current amount that is suppliable by the power source to be connected ([0042] discloses the information being output by the battery includes fault-related information which includes information indicating the amount of current that is flowing).
Regarding claim 4, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches the information is a number of a plurality of the power sources to be connected ([0064]-[0068] discloses the information includes the number of a plurality of power sources being connected, whether that be zero (no connections), one (the AC power), and two (the AC and battery 33)).
Regarding claim 5, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches the hardware processor is configured to control, based on the information, distribution of the electric power to the executor and the battery from the power source that has been connected ([0065]-[0068] discloses based on the capability of the power source distributing power to the executor and the battery accordingly).
Regarding claim 6, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 5, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches the hardware processor is configured to vary a ratio of electric power distribution to the executor and a ratio of electric power distribution to the battery according to the electric power supplying capability of the power source that has been connected ([0065]-[0068] discloses varying a ratio (either supplying power or not supplying power to the battery while supplying power to the apparatus 10A (executor)) based on the capability of the connected power source).
Regarding claim 7, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 6, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches in a case where the first power source is connected, the hardware processor is configured to cause the ratio of the electric power distribution to the executor to be larger than the ratio of the electric power distribution to the battery ([0066] discloses when the battery 33 (first power source) is connected not supplying power to the battery 18, therefore the ratio of power being distributed to the executor is larger than the ratio of power being distributed to the battery).
Regarding claim 9, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Nomura further teaches the second power source has a maximum electric current supply amount at least 1.3 times a maximum electric current supply amount of the first power source ([0048] discloses the output of the first AC adapter 111 (second power source) is 5Amps while the output of the second AC adapter 112 (first power source) is 3Amps, therefore the maximum electric current supply of the second power source is at least 1.3 times the maximum electric current supply amount of the first power source).
Regarding claim 10, Kazui in view of Nomura teach an ultrasound diagnostic system, comprising: the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
a cart attachable to and detachable from a main body of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ( Kazui [0009] discloses the external power source is a cart which is connected to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. Fig. 1 shows the main body 10A attached to the external power source 30A), wherein
the main body includes the battery as a first battery (Kazui [0034] and fig. 1 discloses battery 18),
the cart includes a second battery (Kazui [0035] and fig. 1 disclose battery 33), and
the hardware processor is configured to perform control such that amounts or an amount of the electric power to be supplied to the executor, the first battery, and/or the second battery are/is varied according to the electric power supplying capability of the power source that is the first power source or the second power source and has been connected (Kazui [0064]-[0068] discloses based on the capability of the power source distributing power to the executor and the first battery accordingly).
Regarding claim 11, Kazui teaches a power source control method for an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (diagnostic system 1A in fig. 1), the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus including: an executor (diagnostic apparatus 10A in fig. 1); a battery (battery 18 in fig. 1); and a main body (the main body of diagnostic apparatus 10A in fig. 1), the executor configured to execute ultrasound diagnosis ([0034] discloses the apparatus 10A executes ultrasound diagnostic functions), the battery configured to supply electric power to the executor ([0039] discloses supplying power from the battery 18), the main body being connectable to both a first power source and a second power source (fig. 1 shows the main body is connectable to a first power source (battery 33) and a second power source (outlet plug 32a)), the first power source configured to supply the electric power to the executor and the battery ([0065] disclose supplying power to the battery 18 and the apparatus using battery 33), the second power source configured to supply the electric power to the executor and the battery ([0068] discloses supplying power to the battery 18 and the apparatus using AC adapter 32 and plug 32a),
performing control such that amounts or an amount of the electric power to be supplied to the executor and/or the battery are/is varied according to electric power supplying capability of a power source that is the first power source or the second power source and has been connected ([0064]-[0068] discloses based on the capability of the power source distributing power to the executor and the battery accordingly),
wherein the second power source includes an AC adapter (fig. 1 discloses plug 32a/AC adaptor 32 which represents the second power source).
Kazui does not specifically teach the second power source has suppliable electric power larger than suppliable electric power of the first power source and the first power source includes a first AC adapter, and the second power source includes a second AC adapter.
However,
Nomura in a similar field of providing multiple power sources to an apparatus discloses the second power source has suppliable electric power larger than suppliable electric power of the first power source ([0048] discloses the output of the first AC adapter 111 (second power source) is 5Amps while the output of the second AC adapter 112 (first power source) is 3Amps, therefore the suppliable electric power of the second power source is larger than that of the first power source) and the first power source includes a first AC adapter, and the second power source includes a second AC adapter ([0048] discloses the external power source includes AC adapter 111 (second power source) and AC adapter 112 (first power source)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Kazui to have the second power source have suppliable electric power larger than suppliable electric power of the first power source and the first power source includes a first AC adapter, and the second power source includes a second AC adapter in order to ensure the apparatus is receiving enough power to perform the desired process, as recognized by Nomura ([0055]-[0056]).
Regarding claim 12, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program for causing the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus to execute the power source control method according to claim 11 ([0036] of Kazui teaches “a nonvolatile memory such as a semiconductor, and stores a system program corresponding to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 10A, various kinds of processing programs that can be executed on the system program…the programs are stored in a form of program codes that can be read out by computers, and the CPU successively executes actions according to the programs code”).
Regarding claim 14, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Kazui further teaches an AC adapter connector connected to the first power source or the second power source ([0046] and fig. 1 disclose AC adapter 32 which is connected to the second power source 32a);
a first switching element configured to be selectively switched to either one of a first path connecting the AC adapter connector and the hardware processor, a second path connecting the first battery and the hardware processor, or a third path connecting the second battery and the hardware processor ([0047] and fig. 1 disclose switch 35 which connects the second battery and the hardware processor); and
a second switching element positioned in a middle of a path connecting the AC adapter connector and the first switching element, and configured to be selectively switched to either one of a fourth path connecting the AC adapter connector and the first battery ([0047] and fig. 1 disclose switch 34 which connects a path between the AC adapter 32 and the first battery 18, when switch 35 is open), or a fifth path connecting the AC adapter connector and the second battery ([0047] and fig. 1 disclose switch 34 which connects a path between the AC adapter 32 and the second battery 33).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazui in view of Nomura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Orringer et al. (US 20170215717, hereinafter Orringer).
Regarding claim 8, Kazui in view of Nomura teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Kazui in view of Nomura does not specifically teach the second power source is constituted by combining a plurality of external power sources.
However,
Orringer in a similar field of providing power to an apparatus teaches a second power source is constituted by combining a plurality of external power sources ([0033] discloses the power source 400 is the combination of a plurality of external power sources, AC power source, batteries, AC/DC adapter).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the second power source of Kazui in view of Nomura for the second power source of Orringer because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of supplying backup power to the executor and battery of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kazui et al. (US 20200297325, hereinafter Kazui) in view of Shah (US 20120307971).
Regarding claim 13, Kazui teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0033] ultrasonic diagnostic system 1A in fig. 1), comprising:
an executor that is configured to execute ultrasound diagnosis ([0034] ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 10A in fig. 1 executes ultrasound diagnosis);
a battery that is configured to supply electric power to the executor ([0040] battery 18 supplies power to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus);
an AC adopter that is capable of switching between a first electric power and a second electric power ([0054] discloses when the plug of the AC adapter 32 is connected to an outlet the switch for supplying power via the AC adapter 32 is switched on), the AC adopter configured to supply the electric power to the executor and the battery ([0054] discloses the AC adapter is configured to supply power and fig. 1 shows the power is supplied to the executor and the battery); and
a hardware processor (the electronic circuitry of system 1A in fig. 1) that is connectable to the AC adopter (fig. 1 shows the electronic circuitry of the system 1A is connected to AC adapter 32), and is configured to perform control such that amounts or an amount of the electric power to be supplied to the executor and/or the battery are/is varied according to electric power supplying capability of the AC adopter, which is either one of the first electric power or the second electric power ([0069] discloses supplying the source power to each of the components of the apparatus 10A and the battery 18. The source power corresponds to the power being transmitted from the power supply 30A, see [0038]. [0066] further discloses switching off supplying power to the battery 18 while maintaining power supply to the apparatus (executor) when the power is being transmitted from the battery 33, thereby varying the amount of power being supplied to the executor and battery according to the power supply capability of the AC adopter).
Kazui does not specifically teach the second power source has electric power larger than electric power of the first power source.
However,
Shah in a similar field of endeavor teaches a second power source having electric power larger than electric power of a first power source ([0036] discloses the plug outlet power source (second source) has a 110V/15 Ampere power while [0039] discloses the battery (first power source) has a 12 volt, 9 Ampere power. Therefore the second power source has a suppliable electric power larger than the suppliable electric power of the first power source).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the second power source have electric power larger than electric power of the first power source of Shah to the power sources of Kazui to allow for the predictable results of ensuring the apparatus is receiving optimal power to perform the desired process.
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights