DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in China on 2/24/2024. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the CN202410167133.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted by the examiner that on 7/25/2025, the office mailed a notice that the priority document exchange failed to electronically retrieve the certified copy, applicant may request a retry and check the access code or provide a certified copy themselves.
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:
Transmission member in claims 1, 8, 14, and 20. Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base”.
Drive member in claims 1, 14, and 20. Claims 1, 14, and 20 recite “the drive member is configured to provide a force for driving the swing”.
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.
The specification discloses in para. [0081] “the transmission member 520 is a drive rope…the drive member 510 is a motor”. Therefore for examination purposes the transmission member will be interpreted as a rope and the drive member will be interpreted as a motor.
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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 20, lines 7-9 of claims 1 and 20 recite “the transducer element layer is arranged in a form of an arc surface having a first axis as its central axis, and an angle between two ends of the transducer element layer and the first axis is greater than 180°”. It is unclear how the angle is being measure between two points and a line. Paragraph [0063] of the current application recites “referring to FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, in some embodiments, the transducer element layer 220 may be arranged in the form of an arc surface having the first axis A as its central axis, with the angle a between the two ends of the transducer element layer 220 and the first axis A being at least 180°”. Fig. 4 shows the position of axis A and Fig. 5 shows the angle a. Based on what is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 the angle a is an angle between the two ends of the transducer element layer around axis A. Therefore for examination purposes the claims will be interpreted as “the transducer element layer is arranged in a form of an arc surface having a first axis as its central axis, and an angle between two ends of the transducer element layer around the first axis is greater than 180°”. Claims 2-13 are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites “wherein the first axis extends through the swing axle”. As recited above paragraph [0063] of the current application recites “referring to FIG. 4 and FIG. 5, in some embodiments, the transducer element layer 220 may be arranged in the form of an arc surface having the first axis A as its central axis, with the angle a between the two ends of the transducer element layer 220 and the first axis A being at least 180°”. Fig. 4 shows the position of axis A and Fig. 5 shows the angle a. Based on what is shown in Figs. 4 and 5 the angle is an angle between the two ends of the transducer element layer around axis A. Claim 1 also recites “the swing axle is located in the accommodating space and integrally formed with the backing layer or fixed on the backing layer”. An arc shape only has one central axis therefore it is unclear how the first axis would be a central axis of the arc shape of the transducer and also be extending through the accommodating space of the backing layer. Paragraph [0068] discloses “Furthermore, in some embodiments, the first axis A extends through the swing axle 310, ensuring that during the swing motion of the transducer 200 along with the swing axle 310, the distance between the outermost point of the transducer 200 and the axis B of the swing axle 310 is approximately equal to the distance between the outermost point of the transducer 200 and the first axis A.” Therefore for examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “wherein an axis that crosses at the center point of the arc surface extends through the swing axle”.
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, 8, 11, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200245972) and further in view of Morimoto (US 20230124828) and Xiang (CN116264973A).
Regarding claim 1, Takahashi discloses an endocavity ultrasonic probe ([0001] – “The present invention relates to an ultrasonic probe, and particularly to an ultrasonic probe of a body cavity insertion type”), comprising:
a transducer, wherein the transducer comprises a backing layer, a transducer element layer, […], and a lens layer the transducer element layer comprises a plurality of transducer elements, the backing layer is disposed on a positive side of the transducer elements, […] the transducer element layer is arranged in a form of an arc surface having a first axis as its central axis (Fig. 7, [0068] – “A bent portion indicated by Symbol 108 corresponds to the vibration element array and one or a plurality of alignment layers. An acoustic lens 110 is provided on the front side of the portion 108. The backing 107 is provided on the rear side of the portion 108, that is, on the rear surface side”), and an angle between two ends of the transducer element layer and the first axis is greater than 180° (as seen in in Fig. 5 the element array extends further than the central axis shown therefore the angle is greater than 180°);
a transducer support, wherein the transducer support comprises a swing axle, and the transducer support is configured to support the transducer ([0074] – “The shaft member may be disposed to connect the end 78A and the other end 78B in the bent body 78”, [0050] – “The vibrator part 62 rotatably moves about the central axis (central line) of the shaft member 76”, [0054] – “the bent body 78 includes a vibration element array”);
a base, wherein the transducer support is rotatably mounted on the base ([0072] – “The middle part 72 and two bearing ends 74A and 74B all are formed in a fork shape. The shaft member 76 is rotatably held by two bearing ends 74A and 74B at two positions separated away from each other in the rotation axis”); and
a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises […] a drive member, […] the drive member is configured to provide a force for driving the swing ([0040] – “a motor as the driving source is disposed inside a front portion 26A of the middle part 26. The driving force thus generated is transferred to the scanning mechanism”);
wherein a surface of the backing layer away from the transducer element layer forms an accommodating space, the swing axle is located in the accommodating space and integrally formed with the backing layer or fixed on the backing layer, two ends of the swing axle and the corresponding transducer element layer are separated by at least a portion of the backing layer ([0074] – “The shaft member may be disposed to connect the end 78A and the other end 78B in the bent body 78”, [0050] – “The vibrator part 62 rotatably moves about the central axis (central line) of the shaft member 76”, [0054] – “In the bent body 78, a backing is provided on the rear side, that is, the rear surface side of the vibration element array”), a vertical distance between a line connecting the two ends of the transducer element layer and an apex of the arc surface is greater than a vertical distance between an axis of the swing axle and the apex of the arc surface (As seen in Fig. 5 the two ends of the transducer extend down past the central axis and the shaft is aligned with the central axis therefore the vertical distance between a line connecting the two ends of the transducer element layer and an apex of the arc surface is greater than a vertical distance between an axis of the swing axle and the apex of the arc surface), and
the swing axle is rotatably mounted on the base ([0072] – “The middle part 72 and two bearing ends 74A and 74B all are formed in a fork shape. The shaft member 76 is rotatably held by two bearing ends 74A and 74B at two positions separated away from each other in the rotation axis”).
Conversely Takahashi does not explicitly teach a matching layer […] the matching layer is disposed on a negative side of the transducer elements, the lens layer is disposed on a side of the matching layer that is opposite to the transducer elements,
a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member […] the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base […];
However Morimoto discloses a matching layer […] the matching layer is disposed on a negative side of the transducer elements, the lens layer is disposed on a side of the matching layer that is opposite to the transducer elements ([0043] – “The ultrasonic oscillator unit 46 has an acoustic matching layer 76 laminated on the ultrasonic oscillator array 50, and an acoustic lens 78 laminated on the acoustic matching layer 76”),
Morimoto is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound device to be used in the body.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the matching layer of Morimoto to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it will provide better impedance matching between the ultrasound transducer array and the body tissue which would provide better quality images.
Conversely Takahashi and Morimoto do not teach a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member […] the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base […];
However Xiang discloses a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member […] the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base […] ([n0005] – “The drive assembly includes a motor…When the motor rotates in one direction, it drives the rope to move, thereby causing the transducer to sway”, the rope is interpreted as the transmission member);
Xiang is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound probe with a rotatable ultrasound transducer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the driven wheel with the rope to cause the transducer to sway of Xiang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it may simplify the mechanics by only requiring the pulling of the rope in different directions to rotate the probe.
Regarding claim 8, Takahashi, Morimoto, and Xiang disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Takahashi does not teach wherein the transducer support further comprises a driven wheel disposed coaxially on the swing axle; the base is provided with a swing bracket extending towards the swing axle and a housing surrounding the swing bracket, wherein the swing bracket is protruded relative to the housing to form its protruding part that has a swing support member, the swing axle is rotatably mounted on the swing support member, and a dimension of the protruding part is at least two-thirds of a radius of the driven wheel; and the transmission member is mounted on the driven wheel to drive the driven wheel, such that the swing axle and the transducer swing on the swing support member.
However Xiang discloses wherein the transducer support further comprises a driven wheel disposed coaxially on the swing axle ([n0031] – “The ultrasonic probe 100 also includes…a rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42, and a turntable 44 fixed to the rotating shaft 45”, Fig. 3); the base is provided with a swing bracket extending towards the swing axle and a housing surrounding the swing bracket (Fig. 3, [n0031] – “The ultrasonic probe 100 also includes a support base 43, a U-shaped support frame 42 disposed on the support base 43, a rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42, and a turntable 44 fixed to the rotating shaft 45.”, the support base is interpreted as the housing and the support frame is interpreted as the swing bracket), wherein the swing bracket is protruded relative to the housing to form its protruding part that has a swing support member (As seen in Fig. 3 the support frame is protruded relative to the support base and each end of the support frame has a swing support member that is holding the rotating shaft), the swing axle is rotatably mounted on the swing support member ([n0031] – “a rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42, and a turntable 44 fixed to the rotating shaft 45. Transducer 41 to rotating shaft 4…When rope 3 is pulled in one direction, it causes turntable 44 to rotate, which in turn causes transducer 41 to swing”, As seen in Fig. 3 each end of the support frame has a swing support member that is holding the rotating shaft), and a dimension of the protruding part is at least two-thirds of a radius of the driven wheel (Although not explicitly disclosed one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Fig. 3 that the height of the protruding part is at least two-thirds of a radius of the turntable 44); and the transmission member is mounted on the driven wheel to drive the driven wheel, such that the swing axle and the transducer swing on the swing support member ([n0031] – “The turntable 44 has a groove (not labeled) on its outer periphery for receiving the rope 3. The rope 3 is partially placed in the groove. The rope 3 includes a first rope portion 31 and a second rope portion 32 arranged in parallel. Rope 3 is secured into the groove. When rope 3 is pulled in one direction, it causes turntable 44 to rotate, which in turn causes transducer 41 to swing in one direction; when rope 3 is pulled in the opposite direction, it causes transducer 41 to swing in the opposite direction”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the driven wheel and swing bracket of Xiang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it may simplify the mechanics by only requiring the pulling of the rope in different directions to rotate the probe.
Regarding claim 11, Takahashi, Morimoto, and Xiang disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Takahashi further discloses wherein the first axis extends through the swing axle (under the examiners interpretation above it can be seen in Fig. 5 that an axis that crosses at the center point of the arc surface extends through the swing axle).
Regarding claim 12, Takahashi, Morimoto, and Xiang disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Takahashi further discloses wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the axis of the swing axle (claim 1 defines the first axis as being the central axis of the arc surface of the transducer element layer, as seen in Fig. 5 there would be a central axis perpendicular to the axis of the shaft member 76, Fig. 7 shows the y, z plane and one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize the central axis of the arc surface in the x direction, perpendicular to the axis of the shaft member 76).
Regarding claim 20, Takahashi discloses an endocavity ultrasonic probe ([0001] – “The present invention relates to an ultrasonic probe, and particularly to an ultrasonic probe of a body cavity insertion type”), comprising:
a transducer, wherein the transducer comprises a backing layer, a transducer element layer, […], and a lens layer, the transducer element layer comprises a plurality of transducer elements, the backing layer is disposed on a positive side of the transducer elements, […] the transducer element layer is arranged in a form of an arc surface having a first axis as its central axis (Fig. 7, [0068] – “A bent portion indicated by Symbol 108 corresponds to the vibration element array and one or a plurality of alignment layers. An acoustic lens 110 is provided on the front side of the portion 108. The backing 107 is provided on the rear side of the portion 108, that is, on the rear surface side”), and an angle between two ends of the transducer element layer and the first axis is greater than 180° (as seen in in Fig. 5 the element array extends further than the central axis shown therefore the angle is greater than 180°);
a transducer support, wherein transducer support is configured to support the transducer ([0074] – “The shaft member may be disposed to connect the end 78A and the other end 78B in the bent body 78”, [0050] – “The vibrator part 62 rotatably moves about the central axis (central line) of the shaft member 76”, [0054] – “the bent body 78 includes a vibration element array”);
a base, wherein the transducer support is rotatably mounted on the base ([0072] – “The middle part 72 and two bearing ends 74A and 74B all are formed in a fork shape. The shaft member 76 is rotatably held by two bearing ends 74A and 74B at two positions separated away from each other in the rotation axis”); and
a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises […] a drive member, […] and the drive member is configured to provide a force for driving the swing ([0040] – “a motor as the driving source is disposed inside a front portion 26A of the middle part 26. The driving force thus generated is transferred to the scanning mechanism”);
Conversely Takahashi does not explicitly teach a matching layer […] the matching layer is disposed on a negative side of the transducer elements, the lens layer is disposed on a side of the matching layer that is opposite to the transducer elements,
a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member […] the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base […];
However Morimoto discloses a matching layer […] the matching layer is disposed on a negative side of the transducer elements, the lens layer is disposed on a side of the matching layer that is opposite to the transducer elements ([0043] – “The ultrasonic oscillator unit 46 has an acoustic matching layer 76 laminated on the ultrasonic oscillator array 50, and an acoustic lens 78 laminated on the acoustic matching layer 76”),
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the matching layer of Morimoto to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it will provide better impedance matching between the ultrasound transducer array and the body tissue which would provide better quality images.
Conversely Takahashi and Morimoto do not teach a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member […] the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base […];
However Xiang discloses a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member […] the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base […] ([n0005] – “The drive assembly includes a motor…When the motor rotates in one direction, it drives the rope to move, thereby causing the transducer to sway”, the rope is interpreted as the transmission member);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the driven wheel with the rope to cause the transducer to sway of Xiang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it may simplify the mechanics by only requiring the pulling of the rope in different directions to rotate the probe.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200245972), Morimoto (US 20230124828), and Xiang (CN116264973A) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Minkang (CN219982918U).
Regarding claim 9, Takahashi, Morimoto, and Xiang disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 8.
Conversely Takahashi does not teach wherein the driven wheel is disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle along its longitudinal axis.
However Minkang discloses wherein the driven wheel is disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle along its longitudinal axis (as seen in Figs. 2-5 the driven rope pulley [driven wheel] 23 is disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle).
Minkang is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound probe with a rotatable ultrasound transducer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the driven wheel being disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle of Minkang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it will provide more undivided space for any gears or devices necessary for the rotation of the transducer.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takahashi (US 20200245972), Morimoto (US 20230124828), Xiang (CN116264973A),and Minkang (CN219982918U) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Hetz (DE3708236A1).
Regarding claim 10, Takahashi, Morimoto, Xiang, and Minkang disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 8, and 9.
Conversely Takahashi does not teach wherein at least two swing brackets are provided; and the swing axle is provided with a limiting formation that prevents it from moving longitudinally relative to the swing brackets.
However Xiang discloses wherein at least two swing brackets are provided (As seen in Fig. 3 the rotating shaft 45 appears to go through the support frame 42 and paragraph [n0031] discloses that the “rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42”, therefore it can be interpreted each side of the support frame is a bracket holding the rotating shaft on the support frame);
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the at least two swing bracket of Xiang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it may simplify the mechanics by only requiring the pulling of the rope in different directions to rotate the probe.
Conversely Takahashi and Xiang do not teach the swing axle is provided with a limiting formation that prevents it from moving longitudinally relative to the swing brackets.
However Hetz discloses the swing axle is provided with a limiting formation that prevents it from moving longitudinally relative to the swing brackets (Fig. 2, [0025] – “This support axle 38 is firmly connected at its end to a hollowed-out axle carrier 44 by means of two countersunk screws 40, 42”).
Hetz is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound probe with a rotatable ultrasound transducer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Takahashi to include the swing axle being provided with a limiting formation of Hetz to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it provides a firm connection to the brackets.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (CN116264973A).
Regarding claim 14, Xiang discloses an endocavity ultrasonic probe ([n0002] – “An ultrasound probe needs to be inserted into the patient's body during use”), comprising:
a transducer for transmitting and receiving ultrasonic signals ([n0002] – “In order to obtain images from multiple angles, the transducer of an ultrasonic probe is generally designed to be oscillating”, in order to obtain images the ultrasound transducer would transmit and receive ultrasonic signals);
a transducer support, wherein the transducer is mounted on the transducer support, and the transducer support comprises a swing axle and a driven wheel that is coaxially disposed on the swing axle ([n0031] – “The ultrasonic probe 100 also includes…a rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42, and a turntable 44 fixed to the rotating shaft 45”, Fig. 3);
a base, wherein the transducer support is rotatably connected to the base, the base is provided with a swing bracket extending towards the swing axle and a housing surrounding the swing bracket (Fig. 3, [n0031] – “The ultrasonic probe 100 also includes a support base 43, a U-shaped support frame 42 disposed on the support base 43, a rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42, and a turntable 44 fixed to the rotating shaft 45.”, the support base is interpreted as the housing and the support frame is interpreted as the swing bracket), the swing bracket is protruded relative to the housing to form its protruding part that has a swing support member (As seen in Fig. 3 the support frame is protruded relative to the support base and each end of the support frame has a swing support member that is holding the rotating shaft), the swing axle is rotatably mounted on the swing support member ([n0031] – “a rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42, and a turntable 44 fixed to the rotating shaft 45. Transducer 41 to rotating shaft 4…When rope 3 is pulled in one direction, it causes turntable 44 to rotate, which in turn causes transducer 41 to swing”, As seen in Fig. 3 each end of the support frame has a swing support member that is holding the rotating shaft), and a vertical distance between an axis of the swing axle and an uppermost edge of the housing is configured to allow the transducer to swing on the base with an angle of at least 180° (Although not explicitly disclosed one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Fig. 3 that the vertical distance between an axis of the rotating shaft 45 and an uppermost edge of the support base 43 would allow the transducer to swing with an angle of at least 180°) and
a transducer drive component, wherein the transducer drive component comprises a transmission member and a drive member, the transmission member is configured to drive the swing axle and the transducer to swing relative to the base, and the drive member is configured to provide a force for driving the swing ([n0005] – “The drive assembly includes a motor with a first connecting shaft, a first gear connected to and coaxially arranged with the first connecting shaft, a second gear meshing with the first gear, and a second connecting shaft for supporting the second gear. The first and second connecting shafts are arranged in parallel. Both ends of the rope are fixed to the second connecting shaft. When the motor rotates in one direction, it drives the rope to move, thereby causing the transducer to sway”, the motor is interpreted as the drive member and the rope is interpreted as the transmission member).
Regarding claim 15, Xiang discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 14.
Xiang further discloses wherein the vertical distance between the axis of the swing axle and the uppermost edge of the housing is at least two-thirds of a radius of the driven wheel (Although not explicitly disclosed one with ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious in view of Fig. 3 that the vertical distance between the axis of the rotating shaft 45 and the uppermost edge of the support base 43 is at least two-thirds of a radius of the turntable 44).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (CN116264973A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Minkang (CN219982918U).
Regarding claim 16, Xiang discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 14.
Conversely Xiang does not teach wherein the driven wheel is disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle along its longitudinal axis.
However Minkang discloses wherein the driven wheel is disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle along its longitudinal axis (as seen in Figs. 2-5 the driven rope pulley [driven wheel] 23 is disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle).
Minkang is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound probe with a rotatable ultrasound transducer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiang to include the driven wheel being disposed eccentrically with respect to a lengthwise center of the swing axle of Minkang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it will provide more undivided space for any gears or devices necessary for the rotation of the transducer.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (CN116264973A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Hetz (DE3708236A1).
Regarding claim 17, Xiang discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 14.
Xiang further discloses wherein at least two swing brackets are provided (As seen in Fig. 3 the rotating shaft 45 appears to go through the support frame 42 and paragraph [n0031] discloses that the “rotating shaft 45 disposed on the support frame 42”, therefore it can be interpreted each side of the support frame is a bracket holding the rotating shaft on the support frame);
Conversely Xiang does not teach the swing axle is provided with a limiting formation that prevents it from moving longitudinally relative to the swing brackets.
However Hetz discloses the swing axle is provided with a limiting formation that prevents it from moving longitudinally relative to the swing brackets (Fig. 2, [0025] – “This support axle 38 is firmly connected at its end to a hollowed-out axle carrier 44 by means of two countersunk screws 40, 42”).
Hetz is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound probe with a rotatable ultrasound transducer.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiang to include the swing axle being provided with a limiting formation of Hetz to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it provides a firm connection to the brackets.
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xiang (CN116264973A) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Morimoto (US 20230124828).
Regarding claim 18, Xiang discloses all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 14.
Xiang further discloses the transducer element layer is arranged in a form of an arc surface having a first axis as its central axis (As seen in Fig. 3 the transducer 41 has an arc-shaped surface).
Conversely Xiang does not teach wherein the transducer comprises a backing layer, a transducer element layer, a matching layer and a lens layer, the transducer element layer comprises a plurality of transducer elements, the backing layer is disposed on a positive side of the transducer elements, the matching layer is disposed on a negative side of the transducer elements, and the lens layer is disposed on a side of the matching layer that is opposite to the transducer elements; the transducer elements are arranged in a form of an array to form the transducer element layer,
However Morimoto discloses wherein the transducer comprises a backing layer, a transducer element layer, a matching layer and a lens layer, the transducer element layer comprises a plurality of transducer elements, the backing layer is disposed on a positive side of the transducer elements, the matching layer is disposed on a negative side of the transducer elements, and the lens layer is disposed on a side of the matching layer that is opposite to the transducer elements (Fig. 3, [0042] – “a backing material layer 54 that supports each ultrasonic oscillator 48 from a lower surface side”, [0043] – “The ultrasonic oscillator unit 46 has an acoustic matching layer 76 laminated on the ultrasonic oscillator array 50, and an acoustic lens 78 laminated on the acoustic matching layer 76”); the transducer elements are arranged in a form of an array to form the transducer element layer ([0042] – “The ultrasonic oscillator unit 46 has the ultrasonic oscillator array 50 that includes a plurality of ultrasonic oscillators 48”),
Morimoto is an analogous art considering it is in the field of an ultrasound device to be used in the body.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Xiang to include the backing layer, matching layer and lens layer of Morimoto to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because the backing provides support for each ultrasonic oscillator (Morimoto [0042]), the matching layer provides acoustic impedance matching between the subject and the ultrasonic oscillators (Morimoto [0047]), and the lens increases the transmittance of the ultrasonic waves (Morimoto [0048]).
Regarding claim 19, Xiang and Morimoto disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 14 and 18.
Xiang further discloses wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the axis of the swing axle (it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art in view of Fig. 3 that the central axis [first axis] of the surface of the transducer 41 would be perpendicular to the axis of the rotating shaft 45).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7 and 13 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights