DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484) in the view of Yee (US 20200281565).
Regarding claim 1: Rolus teaches an operating apparatus for a system (Fig. 5 teaches an operating apparatus 110 for a system 100), the operating apparatus comprising a plurality of operating surfaces, wherein at least one of the plurality of operating surfaces is mounted with a trackball assembly and at least one other of the plurality of operating surfaces is mounted with a touchpad assembly, and the operating apparatus can be flipped so that one of the trackball assembly and the touchpad assembly can be selected and then used for controlling the system (Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0137-0140] teach the operating apparatus 100 comprising a plurality of operating surfaces top and bottom with a trackball assembly 135 and with a touchpad assembly 112, and the operating apparatus can be flipped to use the desired trackball or touchpad assembly to control the system 100).
Rolus does not explicitly disclose the system is an ultrasound imaging system.
Yee teaches the system is an ultrasound imaging system (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rolus’s invention by including above teachings of Yee, because ultrasound imaging system is very well-known device used in medical field and operations of it can be controlled by the operating apparatus, as shown by Yee. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 2 & 15: Rolus teaches wherein the plurality of operating surfaces comprise a first surface and a second surface that are disposed opposite to each other, and the trackball assembly and the touchpad assembly are mounted on the first surface and the second surface, respectively (Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0137-0140]).
Regarding claims 7 & 20: Combination of Rolus and Yee teach wherein the operating apparatus is an oval or rectangular shaped, the trackball assembly and the touchpad assembly are disposed on two opposite circular surfaces of the cylinder, respectively, and the operating apparatus can be flipped to select the trackball assembly or the touchpad assembly to connect same to the ultrasound imaging system and control the ultrasound imaging system (Rolus in Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0137-0140] teach the operating apparatus 110 as claimed. Yee in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230, see claim 1 rejection).
Combination of Rolus and Yee fail to explicitly disclose the operative apparatus is a cylinder.
However, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the operating apparatus of Rolus in a cylinder shape instead of shapes as disclosed by Rolus, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular shape of a claimed apparatus was significant, that shape is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious. In Gardner v. TEC Systems, Inc., 725 F.2d 1338, 220 USPQ 777 (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 830, 225 USPQ 232 (1984). Note applicant has not provided any criticality for the claimed shape limitation.
Regarding claim 8: Claim 8 recites similar limitations as in claim 1. Thus, all the arguments made above for claim 1 are applicable to claim 8. Claim 8 further includes an operation panel having a frame to which the operating apparatus can be mounted, which is also taught by Rolus in Fig. 1 notebook 100 housing 103 as frame to which the operating apparatus 110 can be mounted.
Regarding claim 12: Combination of Rolus and Yee teach wherein the operating apparatus can be rotated with respect to the frame, taken out and then flipped, or directly flipped with respect to the frame, so as to select the trackball assembly or the touchpad assembly to control the ultrasound imaging system (Rolus in Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0137-0140] the operating apparatus 110 can be directly flipped as claimed. Yee in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Rolus and Yee, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claim 13: Rolus teaches a system, comprising: an operating apparatus (Fig. 5 teaches an operating apparatus 110 for a system 100) comprising a plurality of operating surfaces, wherein at least one of the plurality of operating surfaces is mounted with a trackball assembly and at least one other of the plurality of operating surfaces is mounted with a touchpad assembly, and the operating apparatus can be flipped so that one of the trackball assembly and the touchpad assembly can be selected and then used for controlling the system, the operating apparatus being configured to control the functions of the system; an operation panel having a frame to which the operating apparatus can be mounted (Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0137-0140] teach the operating apparatus 100 comprising a plurality of operating surfaces top and bottom with a trackball assembly 135 and with a touchpad assembly 112, and the operating apparatus can be flipped to use the desired trackball or touchpad assembly to control the system 100, an operation panel or housing 103 having a frame to which the operating apparatus 110 can be mounted).
Rolus does not explicitly disclose the system is an ultrasound imaging system and a probe comprising a transducer configured to emit and receive an ultrasonic signal.
However, Yee teaches the system is an ultrasound imaging system and a probe comprising a transducer configured to emit and receive an ultrasonic signal (Fig. 2 and paragraph [0016-0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230 and a probe comprising a transducer configured to emit and receive an ultrasonic signal). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rolus’s invention by including above teachings of Yee, because ultrasound imaging system is very well-known device used in medical field and operations of it can be controlled by the operating apparatus, as shown by Yee. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484), in the view of Yee (US 20200281565), and further in the view of Young (US 2008/0311992).
Regarding claims 3 & 16: Combination of Rolus and Yee teach the operating apparatus connected to the ultrasound imaging system (Rolus in Figs. 2, 16, 31 and paragraph [0106, 0111, 0114] teach the operating apparatus 110 connected to the system 100 via various different connection means. Yee in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230).
Combination of Rolus and Yee do not explicitly disclose further comprising a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors mounted on at least one of the plurality of operating surfaces, wherein the first set of connectors is used to connect the trackball assembly to the ultrasound imaging system, and the second set of connectors is used to connect the touchpad assembly to the ultrasound imaging system.
However, Young teaches a first set of connectors and a second set of connectors mounted on at least one of the plurality of operating surfaces, wherein the first set of connectors is used to connect the first input assembly to the system, and the second set of connectors is used to connect the second input assembly to the system (Figs. 1, 4-7 and paragraph [0035-0037] teach a first and second set of connectors #23 used to send first and second input signals from #6 and #7). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Rolus and Yee, by including above teachings of Young, because utilizing a plurality of connectors mounted on the device instead of a cable allows reliable communication of data without worrying about damage to the cable, as taught by Young. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claims 4 & 17: Combination of Rolus, Yee, and Young teach wherein the first set of connectors and the second set of connectors are connected to the ultrasound imaging system by means of a same bus (Rolus in Fig. 2g1.3, 31 and paragraph [0111, 0114] teach the operating apparatus 110 connected to the system 100 via a same bus USB. Young in Figs. 1, 4-7 and paragraph [0035-0037] teach a first and second set of connectors #23 communicating with system via a same bus #14. Yee in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230). See claim 3 rejection for combination reasoning for Rolus, Yee, and Young, same rationale applies here.
Regarding claims 6 & 19: Combination of Rolus, Yee, and Young teach wherein the ultrasound imaging system comprises a processor, the first set of connectors and the second set of connectors are connected to the ultrasound imaging system by means of different buses, and the processor can determine, on the basis of the connected buses, a connection state of the trackball assembly or the touchpad assembly with the ultrasound imaging system (Young in Figs. 4-7 and paragraph [0035-0037] teach the first and second set of connectors 23 are connected to the system by means of different buses 14 & 15, and the processor can determine, on the basis of the connected buses, a connection state of the first input assembly or the second assembly with the system. Yee in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230). See claim 3 rejection for combination reasoning for Rolus, Yee, and Young, same rationale applies here.
Claims 5 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484), in the view of Yee (US 20200281565), in the view of Young (US 2008/0311992), and further in the view of Klein (US 6163326).
Regarding claims 5 & 18: Combination of Rolus and Yee teach the operating apparatus connected with the ultrasound imaging system (Yee in Fig. 2 and paragraph [0020] teach an ultrasound imaging system 200 with an operating apparatus 230). See claim 1 rejection for combination reasoning of Rolus and Yee, same rationale applies here.
Combination of Rolus and Yee do not explicitly disclose further comprising a sensor for determining a connection state of the trackball assembly or the touchpad assembly with the system
However, Klein teach further comprising a sensor for determining a connection state of the trackball assembly or the touchpad assembly with the system (Klein in Fig. 5 and column 8 line 23-60 teach sensor #66). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Rolus and Yee, by including above teachings of Klein, because utilizing the sensor allows the system to detect flipped/inverted state of the device in order to accurately detect the inputs
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484), in the view of Yee (US 20200281565), and further in the view of Mak (US 20080284731).
Regarding claim 9: Combination of Rolus and Yee do not explicitly disclose further comprising a fixing member, wherein the fixing member can be detachably mounted on a top of the operating apparatus for fixing the operating apparatus in the operation panel.
However, Mak teaches a fixing member, wherein the fixing member can be detachably mounted on a top of the operating apparatus for fixing the operating apparatus in the operation panel (Figs. 6-7 and paragraph [0033-0040] teach a fixing member 33 can be detachable mounted on top of the operating apparatus 36 for the fixing the operating apparatus). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Rolus’s invention by designing the operating apparatus in way to utilize a fixing member for securing means to the panel instead of sliding mechanism used by Rolus. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Rolus’s reference by utilizing a fixing member for securing the operating apparatus in the manner specified, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular securing mechanism is inventing, it is already known as disclosed by Mak and is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484), in the view of Yee (US 20200281565), in the view of Mak (US 20080284731), and further in the view of Goh (US 20240129608).
Regarding claim 10: Combination of Rolus, Yee, and Mak do not explicitly disclose wherein an indicator is provided on the operating apparatus or the fixing member, and at least one position symbol matching the indicator is provided on the frame for indicating an unlocking position and a fixing position of the operating apparatus with respect to the frame.
However, Goh teaches wherein an indicator is provided on the operating apparatus or the fixing member, and at least one position symbol matching the indicator is provided on the frame for indicating an unlocking position and a fixing position of the operating apparatus with respect to the frame (Fig. 17C and paragraph [0067] teach indicator or marks are provided on the fixing member 228 and the frame 212). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Rolus, Yee, and Mak by including above teachings of Goh, because providing indicators can help user easily lock/unlock the two items easily, as taught by Goh. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484), in the view of Yee (US 20200281565), in the view of Mak (US 20080284731), and further in the view of Riggs (US 7758424).
Regarding claim 11: Combination of Rolus, Yee, and Mak do not explicitly disclose wherein the operating apparatus can be rotated with respect to the frame, and the frame is provided with at least one limiting unit for limiting a limit position of rotation of the operating apparatus.
However, Riggs teaches wherein the operating apparatus can be rotated with respect to the frame, and the frame is provided with at least one limiting unit for limiting a limit position of rotation of the operating apparatus (Figs. 2-4, claim 33, column 5 lines 13-49 teach the operating apparatus 14 can be rotated with respect to frame and the frame is provided with limiting units 46 for limiting a limit position of rotation). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention to modify combination of Rolus, Yee, and Mak by designing the operating apparatus in way to utilize rotatable mechanism for securing the operating apparatus to the panel instead of sliding mechanism used by Rolus. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Furthermore, It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Rolus’s reference by utilizing a rotatable mechanism for securing the operating apparatus in the manner specified, since it has been held that absent persuasive evidence that a particular securing mechanism is inventing, it is already known as disclosed by Riggs and is a matter of design choice that one of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rolus (US 20060152484), in the view of Yee (US 20200281565), and further in the view of Tsuchiya (US 20160250548).
Regarding claim 14: Combination of Rolus and Yee do not explicitly disclose further comprising a user interface for displaying at least one mark for displaying a connection state of the trackball assembly or the touchpad assembly.
However, Tsuchiya teaches a user interface for displaying at least one mark for displaying a connection state of the first input assembly or the second input assembly (Figs. 4, 10 and paragraph [0068] teach a mark #250B for the first input assembly and another mark #251A for the second input assembly). It would have been obvious for a person skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify combination of Rolus and Yee, by including above teachings of Tsuchiya, because providing a mark on display easily allows the user to visually view which input device is being used, similarly combination of Rolus and Yee can be modified to display a mark for trackball and touchpad. The rationale would have been to use a known method or technique to achieve predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMIT CHATLY whose telephone number is (571)270-1610. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5.
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, Matthew Eason can be reached at 5712707230. 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.
/AMIT CHATLY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2624