NON-FINAL REJECTION
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
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 10,159,465 B2 (hereinafter “Pelissier”) in view of Cullimore, US 8,335,864 B2 (hereinafter “Cullimore”).
Regarding claim 1: Pelissier discloses an ultrasonic imaging system (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
an ultrasonic probe (imaging unit 146 [1]);
a terminal device (muti-use display device 102), comprising a first communication interface (external interface 122); and
a host control platform (ultrasound imaging device 104), configured to control the ultrasonic probe to emit ultrasonic waves to an object under examination and receive ultrasonic echoes to obtain ultrasonic data [2], and transmit the ultrasonic data to the terminal device [3]; wherein the host control platform comprises:
a programmable logic device (processor 140/imaging unit 146 [2]), comprising a scan control circuit that is configured to control the ultrasonic probe to emit the ultrasonic waves to the object under examination and receive the ultrasonic echoes to obtain the ultrasonic data;
a second communication interface (communication unit 142), capable of establishing a communication connection (link 106 [3]) with the first communication interface; and
a controller (processor 140/pairing unit 148 [3]-[7]) for controlling communication between the programmable logic device and the terminal device [4], the controller configured to obtain ultrasonic data from the programmable logic device (implied from [7]), convert the ultrasonic data into packet data (implied from Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. [5]) that conforms to a communication protocol [6], and transmit the packet data to the terminal device via the second communication interface [7].
Pelissier does not disclose that the controller is deployed with a dedicated operating system and a communication protocol stack, wherein the dedicated operating system is a simplified operating system for controller communication between the programmable logic device and the terminal device, the communication protocol stack is compatible with the second communication interface, and the dedicated operating system is configured to obtain the ultrasonic data from the programmable logic device, invoke the communication protocol stack to convert the ultrasonic data into packet data that conforms to a communication protocol corresponding to the communication protocol stack. In this sense, Pelissier can be considered a “base” device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”.
However, these concepts of a dedicated operating system and a communication protocol stack for controlling communication between devices are known from Cullimore. Cullimore teaches a controller, deployed with a dedicated operating system and a communication protocol stack (“a system having an operating system based wholly around a protocol stack, such as a Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) stack. The system may include a central processing unit (CPU) including the operating system embedded therein, and a network interface coupled with a network and the CPU.” Abstract), wherein, the dedicated operating system is a simplified operating system for controlling communication between multiple devices/clients (see Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 42-53; Fig. 6, “The operating system kernel architecturally includes the portion of the system between applications 640 and hardware 680 and operates between applications 640 and hardware 680. The kernel fundamentally includes a TCP/IP stack which the whole operating environment is built around.” col. 7, lines 59-63), the communication protocol stack (TCP Stack 610, Fig. 6) is compatible with a communication interface (ethernet controller 660), and the dedicated operating system is configured to obtain stored data, invoke the communication protocol stack to convert the data into packet data (implied by TCP/IP) that conforms to a communication protocol (e.g., TCP) corresponding to the communication protocol stack, and transmit the packet data to the other device(s) via the communication interface. This technique is applicable to Pelissier because Pelissier is concerned with establishing a network connection between the two devices (i.e., the host control platform and the terminal device discussed above). In this sense Cullimore can be considered to teach known technique that is applicable to the base device.
By applying the technique of Cullimore to the device of Pelissier, it would have predictably resulted in the controller being deployed with a dedicated operating system and a communication protocol stack, wherein the dedicated operating system is a simplified operating system for controller communication between the programmable logic device and the terminal device, the communication protocol stack is compatible with the second communication interface, and the dedicated operating system is configured to obtain the ultrasonic data from the programmable logic device, invoke the communication protocol stack to convert the ultrasonic data into packet data that conforms to a communication protocol corresponding to the communication protocol stack, and therefore would have resulted in the improved system of the claimed invention.
Cullimore further teaches advantages of the technique: “One of the advantages of such a computing system is that it is inherently and fundamentally Internet-oriented. All Internet type functionality is natural and inherent in the computing system design and implementation, i.e., not just bolted on as an afterthought.” (col. 2, lines 50-54).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Pellisier such that the controller is deployed with a dedicated operating system and a communication protocol stack, wherein the dedicated operating system is a simplified operating system for controller communication between the programmable logic device and the terminal device, the communication protocol stack is compatible with the second communication interface, and the dedicated operating system is configured to obtain the ultrasonic data from the programmable logic device, invoke the communication protocol stack to convert the ultrasonic data into packet data that conforms to a communication protocol corresponding to the communication protocol stack, because it would have merely involved applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. Further, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order realize or facilitate a host control platform (controller) that is inherently and fundamentally Internet-oriented. All Internet type functionality is natural and inherent in the computing system design and implementation, i.e., not just bolted on as an afterthought.
Regarding claim 2: Pelissier teaches WiFi and Bluetooth a discussed above regarding claim 1. Further, Cullimore teaches TCP/IP protocol stack as discussed above regarding claim 1; including WiFi (802.11) and Bluetooth (“Alternatively, the corresponding network interface hardware may be a wireless interface, including, but not limited to, an 802.11 based interface, ZigBee, or Bluetooth, etc.” col. 6, lines 11-14).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to further modify the invention of Pelissier such that the communication protocol stack comprising a TCP protocol stack and a WIFI or Bluetooth protocol stack, as taught by Cullimore; and the ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate the communication connection as a wireless communication connection.
Regarding claim 3: See above regarding claim 2. It obviously follows that the second communication interface comprises a WIFI or Bluetooth communication interface since the communication protocol stack(s) (has been modified to) comprise a TCP protocol stack and a WIFI or Bluetooth protocol stack.
Regarding claim 4: It is noted that the claim appears to further limit one of the options recited in claim 3 (in this case, the USB option). Since the combination of Pelissier and Cullimore read on a different option (in this case the WIFI or Bluetooth option), the combination of Pelissier and Cullimore fulfill claim 4.
Regarding claim 5: Pelissier teaches for example, an ASIC which would be understood as lacking an ARM core and/or lacking a protocol stack (col. 17, line 59 – col. 18, line 27).
Regarding claim 6: Pelissier teaches an FPGA (col. 17, line 59 – col. 18, line 27).
Regarding claim 7: Pelissier discloses that the host control platform is arranged within the ultrasonic probe; or the ultrasonic probe and the host control platform are integrated into a single structure; or the host control platform is provided with a socket, and the ultrasonic probe is detachably connected to the host control platform via the socket (implied, Fig. 4, and col. 8, lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 8: Pelissier further discloses that the host control platform is connected to the ultrasonic probe via a wired or wireless connection (implied, Fig. 4, and col. 8, lines 11-18).
Regarding claim 9: Pelissier further discloses that the terminal device comprises at least one of a smartphone, a tablet computer, a cloud server and an ultrasonic imaging apparatus (col. 4, lines 29-42; col. 17, lines 7-15).
Regarding claim 10: Pelissier further discloses that the programmable logic device further comprises a data processing circuit that is configured to process the ultrasonic data (implied; see col. 7, lines 40-49; and col. 17, line 59 – col. 18, line 28).
Regarding claim 11: Pelissier further discloses that the data processing circuit comprises the data processing circuit comprises a beamforming circuit that is configured to perform at least partial beamforming on the ultrasonic data; or the data processing circuit comprises a beamforming circuit that is configured to perform at least partial beamforming on the ultrasonic data and a signal processing circuit that is configured to process the beamformed ultrasonic data to obtain an ultrasonic image; or the data processing circuit comprises a beamforming circuit that is configured to perform at least partial beamforming on the ultrasonic data, a signal processing circuit that is configured to process the beamformed ultrasonic data to obtain an ultrasonic image, and an image processing circuit that is configured to process the obtained ultrasonic image (col. 7, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 12: Pelissier discloses that the host control platform further comprises a data processing device that is configured to process the ultrasonic data (implied; see col. 7, lines 40-49; and col. 17, line 59 – col. 18, line 28).
Regarding claim 13: Pelissier further discloses that the data processing device comprises a beamformer that is configured to perform at least partial beamforming on the ultrasonic data; or the data processing device comprises a beamformer that is configured to perform at least partial beamforming on the ultrasonic data and a processor that is configured to process the beamformed ultrasonic data to obtain an ultrasonic image; or the data processing device comprises a beamformer that is configured to perform at least partial beamforming on the ultrasonic data and a processor that is configured to process the beamformed ultrasonic data to obtain an ultrasonic image and process the obtained ultrasonic image (col. 7, lines 40-49).
Regarding claim 14: Pelissier further discloses the second communication interface comprises a port physical layer (implied from WIFI or Bluetooth; e.g., an antenna of some sort is a physical layer), wherein the second communication interface or the port physical layer is integrated with the controller (implied or otherwise obvious to combine/integrate components into a single component, col. 18, lines 18-28).
Regarding claim 15: See above regarding claim 1. Claim 15 is slightly broader in claim scope because it does not recite the dedicated operating system, but is otherwise identical to claim 1. Claim 15 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 because the discussion above regarding claim 1 also applies to claim 15
Regarding claim 16: See above regarding claim 15. Claim 16 is slightly broader in claim scope because it does not recite the terminal device (instead refers to a target) and does not recite the host control platform (instead, the programmable logic device, etc. are recited as being more broadly part of the ultrasonic imaging system), but is otherwise identical to claim 15. Claim 16 is therefore rejected for the same reasons as claim 15 because the discussion above regarding claim 15 also applies to claim 16.
Regarding claim 19: see above regarding claim 14.
Claims 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pelissier in view of Wu et al., US 2024/0307917 A1 (hereinafter “Wu”)
Regarding claim 16: Pelissier discloses ultrasonic imaging system (100, Fig. 1), comprising:
an ultrasonic probe (imaging unit 146; col. 8, lines 11-18);
a programmable logic device (processor 140/imaging unit 146; col. 7, lines 29-49), comprising a scan control circuit that is configured to control the ultrasonic probe to emit ultrasonic waves to an object under examination and receive ultrasonic echoes so as to obtain ultrasonic data;
a second communication interface (communication unit 142), capable of establishing a communication connection (link 106; col. 6, lines 47-60) with a target device (multi-use display device 102); and
a controller (processor 140/pairing unit 148 [3]-[7]), deployed with a communication protocol [5], wherein, the communication protocol is compatible with the second communication interface (implied from [5]), and the controller is configured to obtain the ultrasonic data from the programmable logic device (implied from [7]), invoke the communication protocol to convert the ultrasonic data into packet data (implied from Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc. [5]) that conforms to the communication protocol [6], and transmit the packet data to the target device via the second communication interface [7].
Pelissier does not disclose that the communication protocol is implemented as a communication protocol stack per se.
Wu discloses a communication protocol stack (“TCP/IP stack” ¶ [0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement communication networking as TCP/IP stack, as taught by Wu, because it is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art to implement the underlying computer networking in Wi-Fi or Bluetooth as TCP/IP stack.
Regarding claims 17-18: Pelissier, modified in view of the teachigns of Wu, further teaches that the controller obtains the ultrasonic data from the scan control circuit (implied from [7]), invokes the communication protocol stack to convert the ultrasonic data into packet data that conforms to a communication protocol corresponding to the communication protocol stack (see above regarding claim 16), and transmits the packet data to the target device via the second communication interface [7]; but does not teach that the controller is further deployed with an operating system and that the transmission of the packet data is through the operating system, let alone that the operating system is Linux or an RTOS.
Wu further teaches an RTOS (¶ [0042]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to implement the controller with an operating system, more specifically an RTOS, as taught by Wu, to act as a layer between the hardware and the software, as is well-understood, routine, and conventional in the art. The ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide for deterministic timing guarantees such as bounded interrupt latency, predictable task scheduling, known worst-case execution times, explicit real-time primitives, etc.
Regarding claim 19: Pellissier further teaches that the second communication interface comprises a port physical layer (implied from WIFI or Bluetooth; e.g., an antenna of some sort is a physical layer), wherein the second communication interface or the port physical layer is integrated with the controller (implied or otherwise obvious to combine/integrate components into a single component, col. 18, lines 18-28).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to COLIN T. SAKAMOTO whose telephone number is (571)272-4958. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, ~9AM-5PM Pacific.
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 M. RAYMOND can be reached at (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.
COLIN T. SAKAMOTO
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3798
/COLIN T. SAKAMOTO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
4 February 2026
1 Col. 8, lines 11-18: “Ultrasound imaging devices 104 may have any of a wide range of various sizes and configurations. For example, ultrasound imaging device 104 may be handheld or hand carried. Alternatively, ultrasound imaging device 104 may be in a laptop form factor or a more traditional cart-based device. In some preferred embodiments, ultrasound imaging devices 104 have the form of hand-held battery-powered probes.”
Col. 7, lines 29-49: “Still referring to FIG. 1, ultrasound imaging device 104 may comprise […] imaging unit 146 […]. Imaging unit 146 is operable to acquire ultrasound image data of a target object based on control signals from processor 140. Imaging unit 146 may comprise a transmitter for generating ultrasound energy and a receiver for receiving ultrasound energy reflected from the target object. […]”
2 Col. 7, lines 36-49: “Imaging unit 146 is operable to acquire ultrasound image data of a target object based on control signals from processor 140. Imaging unit 146 may comprise a transmitter for generating ultrasound energy and a receiver for receiving ultrasound energy reflected from the target object. Imaging unit 146 may further comprise an analog-to-digital converter for digitizing the received ultrasound energy into digital ultrasound data. Imaging unit 146 may further comprise one or more beamformers to combine and focus the received ultrasound energy along a desired scanline. Imaging unit 146 may further comprise a signal processor to apply filtering or compression to the ultrasound image data. Imaging unit 146 may also comprise a scan converter for converting the ultrasound image data into a specific display format.”
3 Col 6, lines 47-60: “A communication link 106 between multi-use display device 102 and ultrasound imaging device 104 may be established. Multi-use display device 102 may gather information about ultrasound imaging device 104 by way of link 106. Multi-use display device 102 may establish communication link 106 with one or more other ultrasound imaging devices 104 (not shown in FIG. 1) and may obtain and use information about the ultrasound imaging devices 104 to select among two or more ultrasound imaging devices 104. Ultrasound imaging device 104 may be wirelessly connected with multi-use display device 102. Ultrasound imaging device 104 may transmit an ultrasound signal to a target object according to a control signal that is transmitted from multi-use display device 102.”
4 Col. 7, lines 57-61: “Pairing unit 148 is operable to establish communication link 106 between communication unit 142 and external interface 122 of multi-use display device 102. Communication unit 142 may comprise one or more wireless transceivers.”
5 Col. 8, lines 29-39: “For example, a preliminary connection may be a Bluetooth™ low energy (BLE) connection and a primary connection may be a Wi-Fi connection. Alternatively, one or more of the following protocols may be used: wireless local area network (LAN), Bluetooth, ZigBee™, Wi-Fi Direct (WFD), ultra wideband (UWB), infrared data association (IrDA), Bluetooth low energy (BLE), near field communication (NFC), wireless broadband internet (Wibro), world interoperability for microwave access (WiMAX), shared wireless access protocol (SWAP), radio frequency (RF) communications and the like.”
6 Col. 8, lines 19-28: “Communication link 106 may comprise more than one communication protocol. In some embodiments, a first protocol is applied for initial discovery of an ultrasound imaging device 104 by multi-use display device 102 as well as acquisition of data useful for selecting the ultrasound imaging device 104 and information useful for establishing a communications link according to a second protocol with the ultrasound imaging device 104. The second protocol may provide a longer range and/or higher bandwidth connection than the first protocol.”
7 Col. 12, lines 35-38: “In operation S210, multi-use display device 102 receives ultrasound data acquired by the ultrasound imaging device in response to the control signal transmitted in operation S208.”