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
Applicant’s submission filed 01/30/2026 has been filed. Currently claims 10-11, and 13-26 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 10, 15, 17-22, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al., (US6461304B1) in view of Nakamura (US4732156A).
Regarding claim 10, Tanaka teaches An ultrasonic probe device comprising:
An ultrasonic probe device comprising:
a main body comprising (fig. 19 ultrasound inspection apparatus 630 comprises body unit 602):
a tube mounting part (figs. 19 and 20 body unit 631 comprising the endoscope connecting mechanism 633 and screw ring 42) configured to be mounted at a leading end of a tube of an endoscopy device (fig. 19 the body unit of the ultrasound inspection apparatus 630 can be detachably attached to the distal end portion 602a through the endoscope connecting mechanism 633 col. 15 line 49-53) the tube mounting part including a peripheral wall configures to surround at least a portion of an outer periphery of the leading end of the tube (fig. 19 endoscope connecting mechanism 633 comprises a peripheral barrel that surrounds a portion of the endoscope end tube col. 16 lines 5-7); and
a main housing protruding from one side of the tube mounting part (fig. 19 end cap 611 protrudes out)
wherein an ultrasonic module coupling portion is disposed at an opening portion of an upper end of the main housing (fig. 19 endoscope connecting mechanism 633 is at an upper end of the end cap 611)
an ultrasonic module is coupled to the ultrasonic module coupling portion of the main housing (fig. 19 ultrasound apparatus 630 is part of body unit 631).
However, Tanaka fails to explicitly disclose wherein the main housing includes a driving part accommodation space capable of accommodating a rotation driving part; wherein the rotation driving part includes a motor and a driving side magnet coupled to a driving shaft of the motor and configured to rotate, wherein the rotation driving part is disposed in the driving part accommodation space; wherein an ultrasonic module body is coupled to the ultrasonic module coupling portion of the main housing and defines a reflector assembly accommodation space, wherein a reflector assembly comprising a reflector and a driven side magnet coupled to a bottom surface of the reflector is disposed in the reflector assembly accommodation space, wherein a transducer is disposed at one side of the reflector assembly, and wherein the motor and the reflector assembly are spatially separated, and the driving side magnet and the driven side magnet are connected by a magnetic force such that, when the driving side magnet rotates, the driven side magnet is rotated by the magnetic force and the reflector rotates.
In the same ultrasound endoscope field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches wherein the main housing includes a driving part accommodation space capable of accommodating a rotation driving part (fig. 1 ultrasonic endoscope comprises operation section 10, insertion section 12, and ultrasonic scanning unit 16 col. 2 line 14-18); wherein the rotation driving part includes a motor (fig. 2 motor 34 col. 2 line 40-41) and a driving side magnet coupled to a driving shaft of the motor and configured to rotate (fig. 2 magnet 28c is coupled to transmission shaft 32 col. 36-42), wherein the rotation driving part is disposed in the driving part accommodation space (see annotated fig. 1 and 2); wherein an ultrasonic module body is coupled to the ultrasonic module coupling portion of the main housing (fig. 2 coupling ring 35 is coupled to the ultrasonic scanning unit 16 col. 2 lines 47-56) and defines a reflector assembly accommodation space (fig. 2 ultrasonic scanning unit 16 contains a scanning chamber 36 that includes rotating mirror 44 col. 3 lines 26-30), wherein a reflector assembly comprising a reflector and a driven side magnet coupled to a bottom surface of the reflector is disposed in the reflector assembly accommodation space (fig. 2 reflecting mirror 44 has a bottom surface that is coupled to the magnetic), wherein a transducer is disposed at one side of the reflector assembly (fig. 2 ultrasonic vibrator 38 is disposed on a side col. 2 lines 62-68), and wherein the motor and the reflector assembly are spatially separated (fig. 1 and 2, the motor 34 and the reflecting mirror 44 are spatially separated), and the driving side magnet and the driven side magnet are connected by a magnetic force such that, when the driving side magnet rotates, the driven side magnet is rotated by the magnetic force and the reflector rotates (fig. 2 when member 28 is rotated, member 42 is also rotated due to the magnetics of each member being connected magnetically col. 3 lines 19-25).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the endoscope of Tanaka with the reflector/motor combination of Nakamura, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopic devices, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound endoscope with a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to make such a combination, and the results of Tanaka using a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 15, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 12, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a magnetic force blocking part is provided between the motor and the driving side magnet.
However, in the same endoscope field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches wherein a magnetic force blocking part is disposed between the motor and the driving side magnet (see annotated fig. 2, the part marked wall would be able to partially alter the magnetic field since it is made of a material, and is between the magnet 28c and the motor 34).
PNG
media_image1.png
283
453
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the endoscope of Tanaka with a wall between the motor and driven side magnet of Nakamura, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopic devices, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound endoscope with a wall between the motor and driven side magnet to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to make such a combination, and the results of Tanaka a wall between the motor and driven side magnet are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 17, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a reflector assembly support shaft is disposed on a bottom surface of the reflector assembly accommodation space and supports the reflector assembly so that the reflector assembly is rotatable.
However in the same ultrasound endoscope field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches wherein a reflector assembly support shaft is disposed on a bottom surface of the reflector assembly accommodation space and supports the reflector assembly so that the reflector assembly is rotatable (fig. 2 pivot 42a supports the rotating mirror 44 col. 3 line 26-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the endoscope of Tanaka with the reflector/motor combination of Nakamura, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopic devices, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound endoscope with a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to make such a combination, and the results of Tanaka using a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 18, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 17, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein a transducer housing is coupled to an upper end of the ultrasonic module body and accommodates the transducer.
In the same endoscope field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches wherein a transducer housing is coupled to an upper end of the ultrasonic module body and accommodates the transducer (fig. 2 the vibrator 38 is disposed inside distal end portion of casing 16a).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the endoscope of Tanaka with the reflector/motor combination of Nakamura, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopic devices, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound endoscope with a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to make such a combination, and the results of Tanaka using a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 19, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 18, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the transducer comprises a transducer wire, and a wire guide through which the transducer wire passes is disposed in the ultrasonic module body.
However in the same ultrasound field of endeavor ,Nakamura teaches wherein the transducer comprises a transducer wire, and a wire guide through which the transducer wire passes is disposed in the ultrasonic module body (fig. 2 signal cable 33a is in a lumen guide that passes through the ultrasound scanning unit 16, and would have a transducer wire in the cable itself col. 2 line 66-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the endoscope of Tanaka with the reflector/motor combination of Nakamura, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopic devices, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound endoscope with a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to make such a combination, and the results of Tanaka using a reflective mirror and a motor that is magnetically coupled to the mirror are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 20, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 18, but fails to explicitly disclose a cap coupled to the ultrasonic module body and configured to cover an upper portion of the transducer housing.
In the same endoscope field of endeavor, Nakamura teaches a cap coupled to the ultrasonic module body and configured to cover an upper portion of the transducer housing (see annotated fig. 2, the rounded portion acts as a cap).
PNG
media_image2.png
279
624
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the endoscope of Tanaka with the cap of Nakamura, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopic devices, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound endoscope with distal cap to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to make such a combination, and the results of Tanaka using a distal cap for the ultrasound device are reasonably predictable.
Regarding claim 21, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 10, wherein Tanaka further teaches wherein the main body is configured to not block an objective lens disposed on an end surface of the tube (fig. 19 end cap 11 has through holes comprising illuminating windows 605 so it does not block objective lens 605 col. 15 lines 15-25).
Regarding claim 22, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 22, wherein Tanaka further teaches wherein the main body includes an insert portion configured to be inserted into a hole defined in the end surface of the tube to support coupling of the main body to the tube (fig. 19 rib 625 is configured to be inserted to groove 626 col. 15 lines 29-32).
Regarding claim 25, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 10, wherein Tanaka further teaches a sleeve coupled to an edge of an end of the tube mounting part and configured to be coupled to an outer peripheral surface of the tube (fig. 19 screw ring 642is coupled to the) to fix an end of the tube mounting part to the outer peripheral surface of the tube of the endoscopy device (col. 16 line 17-24 screw ring 642 is screwed onto of the peripheral barrel 636 (which is a part of the body unit 631); col. 16 line 66- col. line 2 the screw ring 642 affixes the body unit 631 to the front end portion of the insertion unit 602).
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 10, and in further view of Teo et al., (US20120172698 A1).
Regarding claim 11, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 10, wherein Tanaka further teaches the through-hole is defined at a bottom surface of the main housing, wherein a wire configured for operation of the transducer is extended through the through-hole (fig. 11 the cross section shows a through hole for the signal cables of the transducers and is at a bottom of the housing), but fails to explicitly disclose a wire for operating the rotation driving part.
In the same endoscope field of endeavor, Teo teaches a wire for operating the rotation driving part (fig. 2 control unit 120 is electrically connected to motor 206 via leads 131, and leads 131 deliver current to stator 208 to generate a magnetic field that rotates rotor 210 [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the ultrasound portion of modified Tanaka to comprise the motor/magnet/reflector layout of Teo, as this would improve imaging quality (see Teo [0031]).
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 10, and in further view of Schwarzschild et al., (US4977898A).
Regarding claim 13, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the rotation driving part comprises a substrate coupled to a terminal of the motor and having a motor driving wire for operating the motor.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Schwarzschild teaches wherein the rotation driving part further includes a substrate coupled to a terminal of the motor (fig. 2 terminal plate 39 have connections to the motor coils 33 through two conductors col. 7 line 17-23) and having a motor driving wire configured to operate the motor (col. 7 line 21-22 there are two conductors for the motor coils 33).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of modified Tanaka with the components as taught by Schwarzschild, as this would allow for the producing of the invention at a fraction of the cost (see Schwarzschild col. 2 line 50-54) as well as being highly miniaturized and greatly improved relative to known devices (see Schwarzschild Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is bonded to a body of the motor by a bonding part.
However in the same ultrasound endoscope field of endeavor, Schwarzschild teaches wherein the substrate is bonded to a body of the motor by a bonding part (col. 7 line 12, the terminal board is adhesively installed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of modified Tanaka with the components as taught by Schwarzschild, as this would allow for the producing of the invention at a fraction of the cost (see Schwarzschild col. 2 line 50-54) as well as being highly miniaturized and greatly improved relative to known devices (see Schwarzschild Abstract).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 10, and in further view of Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 16, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 10, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the ultrasonic module body has an insertion end coupled to the main housing.
However in the same endoscope field of endeavor, Sakamoto teaches wherein the ultrasonic module body has an insertion end coupled to the main housing (fig. 12 tapered surface 97a is the end of the ultrasound scanner head 1a that is inserted into the endoscopic channel 7 of the endoscope).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the device of Tanaka with the ultrasonic transducer device that’s insertable into the endoscope device as taught by Sakamoto, as this would allow for as broad of an active surface as possible while not having to consider passing the ultrasound scanner through the endoscopic channel prior to introduction into a body cavity (see col. 2 line 65 - col. 3 line 10).
Claims 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Hatakeyama (US20230052510A1).
Regarding claim 23, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate, and the terminal is coupled to the flexible substrate by soldering.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Hatakeyama teaches wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate, and the terminal is coupled to the flexible substrate by soldering (flexible board 9 is soldered to signal lines connecting to terminals 912T and 913T).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to substitute the substrate of modified Tanaka with the flexible board that is coupled to the terminal through soldering of Hatakeyama, as both inventions relate to ultrasound endoscopes and would yield the predictable results of an ultrasonic endoscope that has a flexible substrate coupled to a terminal by soldering to one of ordinary skill. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a substitution, and the results of modified Tanka having a flexible board that is coupled to the terminal through soldering are reasonably predictable.
Claims 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 13, and in further view of Robinson (US5313128A).
Regarding claim 24, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 13, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate, and the flexible substrate is bonded to a body of the motor by an adhesive portion.
In a reference that is pertinent to the problem of attaching and retaining a flexible substrate relative to a motor as faced by the inventor, Robinson teaches wherein the substrate is a flexible substrate, and the flexible substrate is bonded to a body of the motor by an adhesive portion (col. 3 lines 62-66 the flexible printed circuit 100 has an adhesive coating that allows it to adhere to the shaft of the stator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the device of modified Tanaka with the adhesion of Robinson, as this would lead to the elimination of the need for lead wire routing (see Robinson col. 2 lines 40-41).
Claims 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 18, and in further view of Zhou (US9456802B2) and Sandrin (US20210369242A1).
Regarding claim 26, modified Tanaka teaches the device of claim 18, but fails to explicitly disclose member is disposed at a coupling portion between the transducer housing and the ultrasonic module body.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Zhou teaches member is disposed at a coupling portion between the transducer housing and the ultrasonic module body (fig. 1 frame 109 surrounds reflector 104 and is disposed between the transducer 012 and the reflector 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the device of modified Tanaka with the frame of Zhou, as both inventions relate to ultrasound devices with reflectors, and would yield the predictable result of an ultrasound device with a frame around the reflector to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would be able to perform such a substitution, and the results of modified Tanaka having a frame around the reflector are reasonably predictable.
However the combination of references fails to explicitly disclose a sealing member.
In the same ultrasound field of endeavor, Sandrin teaches a sealing member ([0067] ultrasound transcoder 103 is covered with membrane 104 that ensures it is sealed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to modify the transducer of modified Tanaka with the sealing membrane of Sandrin, as this would avoid leakage that occurs (see Sandrin [0068]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/30/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 10, Applicant has argued that the references do not teach the “rotation driving part is disposed in the driving part accommodation space,… a reflector assembly comprising a reflector… is disposed in the reflector assembly accommodation space,… the motor and the reflector assembly are spatially separated” as recited in claim 10.
Examiner disagrees, as Nakamura teaches all these limitations, as the claims do not limit how large the accommodation space is. In addition, the motor and the reflector assembly of Nakamura are in different spaces and do not touch, so therefore they are spatially separated. Therefore, Tanaka in view of Nakamura teach all the claim limitations of claim 10.
The remaining claims are rejected for substantially the same reasons as above.
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 MICHAEL Y FANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0952. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Friday 9:30 am - 6:00pm.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at 5712722714. 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.
/MICHAEL YIMING FANG/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights