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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“an imaging unit that performs imaging …” in claim 1, line 8. Interpreted as a prism, an imaging element, and a mounting substrate of the imaging element [0039].
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
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 1-14 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the "an axis of the insertion part” in line 13. This recitation is unclear because the relationship between this recitation and the “an axial direction of an insertion part” in line 3 is unclear. For examination purposes, Examiner of record treats both recitations as referring to the longitudinal axis of the insertion part.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto et al ( WO 2018179758), hereinafter Morimoto, in view of Kitahara (US 20180168541), hereinafter Kitahara.
Regarding claim 1, Morimoto teaches an ultrasound endoscope (1) (Abstract. “An ultrasonic endoscope 1 (hereinafter, also simply referred to as “endoscope 1”) in FIG. 1 includes an operation unit 10 that is held by a practitioner and performs various operations, and an insertion unit 12 that is inserted into a body cavity of a patient.”; (Ultrasonic endoscope), p. 3; Fig. 1) comprising:
a transducer array (50) in which a plurality of transducers (“the distal end portion 34 is connected to the ultrasonic transducer 50 having one or more ultrasonic transducers”; 9th para., p. 3), each of which extends in a first direction (a direction normal to face 52) intersecting an axial direction (38) of an insertion part (34) of the ultrasound endoscope (“the distal end portion 34”; p. 5, 1st para.), are arranged in a curved shape (“an ultrasonic transmission / reception surface 52 formed by arranging ultrasonic transducers for transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves in a curved shape along the direction of the axis 38 of the tip body 36.”; (Configuration of tip), 6th para., p. 4; Figs. 2 and 4-5);
an observation window (44) (244) provided on a proximal end side of the insertion part with respect to the transducer array (“As shown in FIGS. 2 and 3, the distal end portion main body 36 includes an observation window 44,”; (Configuration of tip), p. 4, 7th para.; Figs. 2-5 and 12);
an imaging module (“an imaging system”; p. 6, 3rd complete para.) including an imaging optical system (“an imaging optical system”; p. 6, 3rd complete para.;) including the observation window, and an imaging unit (“a solid-state imaging device”; p. 6, 3rd complete para.) that performs imaging through the imaging optical system (“Inside the observation window 44 is housed an imaging system unit in which an imaging optical system and a solid-state imaging device constituting an imaging unit are integrally assembled.”; p. 6, 3rd complete para.; Fig. 2); and
a support member (72) that supports the imaging optical system and the imaging unit (“The observation window 44 is disposed on an observation means forming surface 72 provided on the base end side of the opening forming surface 70… The observation means forming surface 72 on which the observation window 44 is arranged is configured by
a surface having a normal component toward the distal end side in the direction of the axis 38 of the distal end body 36.” (3rd – 4th complete para., p. 6),
as viewed in the first direction, one end edge of the transducer array in a direction perpendicular to an axis (38) of the insertion part (top proximal edge of 50 in Fig. 3) is included in an observation visual field of the observation window (“the observation field of the observation window 44”) (“Further, as shown in FIG. 3, it is preferable that the observation window 44 be arranged offset from the upright stand accommodating portion 62 in the second direction indicated by the arrow B. Here, the observation window 44 is arranged to be offset from the upright support part 62 in the second direction, for example, as shown in FIG. 3, the center line 44 </ b> A of the observation window 44 is upright in a top view. It means that it is shifted in the second direction indicated by the arrow B with respect to the center line 60A of the table 60. With such a configuration, even when the stand 60 is raised and the treatment instrument is led out from the opening 58, the observation field of the observation window 44 is prevented from being blocked by the treatment instrument and the stand 60. It is possible to confirm the treatment position with the observation window 44 with certainty.”; pp. 8 -9; Figs. 2-4),
an angle of the observation visual field (an angle associated with the observation window 44; “The observation means forming surface 72 on which the observation window 44 is arranged is configured by a surface having a normal component toward the distal end side in the direction of the axis 38 of the distal end body 36… Note that the observation means forming surface 72 may be constituted by a vertical surface perpendicular to the direction of the axis 38 of the tip end body 36” 3rd – 4th complete para., p. 6. The angle of the observation visual field cannot exceed 180 degrees because it is limited by a vertical surface of the wall perpendicular to the direction of the axis 38; Figs. 2-4), is equal to or less than the opening angle (180 degrees in Fig. 4),
the support member includes a hole portion into which the imaging optical system is inserted (“Inside the observation window 44 is housed an imaging system unit in which an imaging optical system and a solid-state imaging device constituting an imaging unit are integrally assembled.”; p. 6, 3rd complete para.; Fig. 2), and a side surface that surrounds the imaging unit (72) (“an outer wall and an inner partition wall”; (Configuration of tip), 2nd para., p. 4), and
a gap (“an accommodating portion” (Configuration of tip), 2nd para., p. 4) is formed between the side surface and the imaging unit (“The distal end portion 34 has a distal end portion main body 36 that forms an outer wall and an inner partition wall, and each component arranged in the distal end portion main body 36 is accommodated and held in an accommodating portion provided in the distal end portion main body 36.” (Configuration of tip), 2nd para., p. 4).
While teaching that an opening angle of the transducer array as viewed in the first direction is 90 degrees or more (seen in Figs. 2 and 4), Morimoto does not teach that an opening angle of the transducer array as viewed in the first direction is 90 degrees or more and less than 180 degrees.
However, in the medical imaging field of endeavor, Kitahara discloses an ultrasound endoscope, which is the same art. Kitahara teaches that an opening angle of the transducer array (“θ.sub.1," [0057]) as viewed in the first direction is 90 degrees or more and less than 180 degrees ("the center of curvature of the curved surface of the ultrasound transducer 7 is denoted by θ.sub.1," [0057]; seen in Fig. 12).
Therefore, based on Kitahara’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Morimoto to have an opening angle of the transducer array as viewed in the first direction that is 90 degrees or more and less than 180 degrees, as taught by Kitahara, in order to facilitate ultrasound examination with an endoscope having fewer transducers to simplify the device and reduce costs.
Regarding claim 2, Morimoto modified by Kitahara teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 1.
While teaching that an opening angle of the transducer array as viewed in the first direction is 140 degrees or more (seen in Figs. 2 and 4), Morimoto does not teach that the opening angle is 140 degrees or more and 160 degrees or less.
However, in the medical imaging field of endeavor, Kitahara discloses an ultrasound endoscope, which is the same art. Kitahara teaches that an opening angle of the transducer array (“θ.sub.1," [0057]) as viewed in the first direction is 140 degrees or more and 160 degrees or less ("the center of curvature of the curved surface of the ultrasound transducer 7 is denoted by θ.sub.1," [0057]; seen in Fig. 12).
Therefore, based on Kitahara’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the invention of Morimoto to have the opening angle that is 140 degrees or more and 160 degrees or less, as taught by Kitahara, in order to facilitate ultrasound examination with an endoscope having fewer transducers to simplify the device and reduce costs.
Regarding claim 3, Morimoto modified by Kitahara teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 2, wherein Morimoto teaches that the angle of the observation visual field is 120 degrees or more and 140 degrees or less (“the observation means forming surface 72 is formed as an inclined surface that is inclined upward toward the proximal end side of the distal end portion 34"; p. 6, 4th complete para. In Figs. 2 and 4, the angle of the observation visual field of observation window 44 is restricted by the vertical surface 78A above the observation window and the inclined observation means forming surface 72 below it. Therefore, the angle of the observation visual field is approximately 135 deg.).
Regarding claim 4, Morimoto modified by Kitahara teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 3, wherein Morimoto teaches that a center of the transducer array (60A) is included between rays that constitute both ends of the observation visual field of the observation window as viewed in the first direction (“Here, the observation window 44 is arranged to be offset from the upright support part 62 in the second direction, for example, as shown in FIG. 3, the center line 44 </ b> A of the observation window 44 is upright in a top view. It means that it is shifted in the second direction indicated by the arrow B with respect to the center line 60A of the table 60. With such a configuration, even when the stand 60 is raised and the treatment instrument is led out from the opening 58, the observation field of the observation window 44 is prevented from being blocked by the treatment instrument and the stand 60. It is possible to confirm the treatment position with the observation window 44 with certainty.”; pp. 8 -9; Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 5, Morimoto modified by Kitahara teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 4, wherein Morimoto teaches that a center of the observation visual field (the optical axis of 44) is located on a side opposite to the axis (38) with respect to the one end edge as viewed in the first direction (the upper proximal edge of 50, Fig. 2).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto and Kitahara as applied to claim 5, and further in view of Igarashi (US 20200333580), hereinafter Igarashi.
Regarding claim 6, Morimoto modified by Kitahara teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 4.
Morimoto as modified by Kitahara does not teach that a distance in the axial direction between an end edge in the transducer array on the proximal end side of the insertion part and the observation window is 10 mm or less.
However, in the ultrasonic endoscopes field of endeavor, Igarashi discloses image pickup optical system, endoscope, and image pickup apparatus, which is the same art. Igarashi teaches that a distance in the axial direction between an end edge in the transducer array on the proximal end side of the insertion part and the observation window is 10 mm or less (“2 mm”) (“FIG. 10 is a diagram illustrating a structure of the illumination lens at a distal end part of an ultrasonic endoscope. FIG. 10 illustrates an illumination lens structure preferably to be combined with the image pickup optical system described above. In an ultrasonic endoscope 300 including the image pickup optical system according to the example, the ultrasonic transducer and the illumination lens are disposed close to each other with a distance of 2 mm or less, because of reduction in diameter and reduction in the length of the distal end part. With proximity of the illumination, the ultrasonic transducer easily has high illuminance.” [0194]).
Therefore, based on Igarashi’ teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Morimoto and Kitahara to have a distance in the axial direction between an end edge in the transducer array on the proximal end side of the insertion part and the observation window that is 10 mm or less, as taught by Igarashi, in order to facilitate medical procedures and imaging with a more compact distal end part of the endoscope.
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto and Kitahara as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Segawa et al (CN 101662978), hereinafter Segawa.
Regarding claim 7, Morimoto modified by Kitahara teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 1.
Morimoto as modified by Kitahara does not teach that a first distance of the gap is larger than a second distance between an inner peripheral surface of the hole portion and an outer peripheral surface of the imaging optical system.
However, in the medical devices field of endeavor, Segawa discloses capsule type medical device and capsule type medical device of manufacturing method, which is the same art. Segawa teaches that a second distance between an inner peripheral surface of the hole portion (2c) and an outer peripheral surface of the imaging optical system (15a) (“plate-like portion 15a is a plate member is matched with the optical dome 2c of inner diameter size of the outer diameter of generally disk shape, has an outer peripheral surface is matched with the optical dome 2c of inner circumference surface. In addition, in the plate-like portion 15a fixing installed with the lighting substrate 19f and optical unit 7. Specifically, plate-like portion 15a of the outer diameter is sized smaller than optical dome 2c in diameter of some small, generate proper gap between the plate-like portion 15a of the outer circumferential surface of the optical dome 2c of inner circumference surface. the plate-like part 15a slide freely matching the optical dome 2c of inner circumference surface. the plate-shaped part 15a and the optical dome 2c of inner circumference surface matched with the lower 15a upper plate-shaped part and optical dome 2c faces fixed illumination substrate 19f is disposed.”; p. 12, 3rd complete para.; Figs. 1 and 3).
Therefore, based on Segawa’ teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified the combined invention of Morimoto and Kitahara to have a first distance of the gap that is larger than a second distance between an inner peripheral surface of the hole portion and an outer peripheral surface of the imaging optical system, as taught by Segawa, in order to facilitate medical procedures. A first distance of the gap being larger than a second distance is a reasonable choice out of two options, with the first distance of the gap being larger to simplify the assembly and replacement of the imaging optical system part of the device.
Regarding claim 8, Morimoto modified by Kitahara and Segawa teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 7, wherein Morimoto teaches that a position of the imaging optical system in a direction perpendicular to an optical axis is positioned at the hole portion (“Inside the observation window 44 is housed an imaging system unit in which an imaging optical system and a solid-state imaging device constituting an imaging unit are integrally assembled.”; p. 6, 3rd complete para.; “Note that the observation means forming surface 72 may be constituted by a vertical surface perpendicular to the direction of the axis 38 of the tip end body 36.” p. 6, 4th complete para.; “As shown in FIG. 4, the position of the observation window 44 in the first direction (vertical direction in FIG. 4) indicated by the arrow A is the communication for cleaning when the position of the upper end edge 68a of the standing wall 68 is the reference position.” p. 8, 3rd complete para.; Figs. 2-4).
Regarding claim 9, Morimoto modified by Kitahara and Segawa teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 8.
Morimoto teaches that an illumination window (46L) provided on the proximal end side with respect to the transducer array (Figs. 2-4), wherein a center line of the illumination window is located on a side opposite to the axis with respect to the one end edge as viewed in the first direction (“the uppermost end of the treatment instrument outlet 80 is the same as the uppermost position of the ultrasonic transmission / reception surface 52 of the ultrasonic transducer 50,”; p. 8, the last complete para. Illumination window 46L is at the same level as the top of the treatment instrument outlet 80 in the vertical “A” direction in Fig. 2 and, according to Fig. 4, the axis 38 is on the opposite side with respect to the one end edge as claimed).
Regarding claim 10, Morimoto modified by Kitahara and Segawa teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 9, wherein Morimoto teaches that the observation window (44) and the illumination window (46L) are provided eccentric to a same direction as viewed in the axial direction (seen in Fig. 3).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto, Kitahara, and Segawa as applied to claim 10, and further in view of Hiraoka (US 20220361846), hereinafter Hiraoka.
Regarding claim 11, Morimoto modified by Kitahara and Segawa teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 10, wherein Morimoto teaches an outlet port of a treatment tool (80) (“the distal end body 36 is provided with a treatment instrument outlet 80… the treatment instrument”).
Morimoto as modified by Kitahara and Segawa does not teach that the transducer array, the observation window, and the outlet port are provided in this order from a distal end side of the ultrasound endoscope as viewed in the first direction.
However, in the ultrasound endoscopes field of endeavor, Hiraoka discloses ultrasound endoscope, which is the same art. Hiraoka teaches that the transducer array (21), the observation window, and the outlet port (3a) are provided in this order from a distal end side of the ultrasound endoscope as viewed in the first direction (“The operating portion 3 has a forceps insertion opening 3a provided for insertion of, for example, a forceps needle, which is a treatment tool. A forceps insertion passage is provided inside the insertion portion 2 and the forceps insertion opening 3a serves as an insertion opening of the forceps insertion passage.” [0029]; “FIG. 2 is a perspective view of a distal end portion of the ultrasound endoscope illustrated in FIG. 1. The ultrasound endoscope 1 has an ultrasound transducer 21, a rigid portion 22, a holder 23, an illumination lens 24, and an objective lens 25.” [0030]; Figs. 1-2).
Therefore, based on Hiraoka’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined invention of Morimoto, Kitahara, and Segawa to have the transducer array, the observation window, and the outlet port that are provided in this order from a distal end side of the ultrasound endoscope as viewed in the first direction, as taught by Hiraoka, in order to facilitate the imaging by making the distal end of the ultrasound endoscope with imaging components more compact and therefore easy to maneuver inside the body lumens.
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Morimoto, Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka as applied to claim 11, and further in view of Tsung (US 20100191123), hereinafter Tsung.
Regarding claim 12, Morimoto modified by Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 11, wherein Morimoto teaches a system (“The endoscope 1 is connected via a universal cord 14 to a system component device such as a processor device”; p. 3, l. 1-6; Fig. 1) comprising:
the ultrasound endoscope; and
a processor (“a processor device”; p. 3, l. 1-6; Fig. 1) configured to perform processing of generating an ultrasound image based on an output signal of the transducer array obtained by controlling the transducer array,
wherein the processor is configured to perform first control of generating the ultrasound image with a first angle of view [which is larger than the opening angle] (“The apparatus is supplied with power, control signals, illumination light, … necessary for the operation of the endoscope 1 from the apparatus, and observation image data acquired by the imaging unit, and an ultrasonic transducer. The acquired ultrasonic image data is transmitted from the endoscope 1 to the system component apparatus. Note that the observation image and the ultrasonic image transmitted to the system component apparatus are displayed on a monitor and can be observed by a practitioner”).
Morimoto as modified by Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka does not teach that the processor is configured to perform first control of generating the ultrasound image with a first angle of view which is larger than the opening angle.
However, in the ultrasonic imaging field of endeavor, Tsung discloses ultrasonic probe device and system and methods of generating ultrasonic images. Tsung teaches that the processor (52) is configured to perform first control of generating the ultrasound image with a first angle of view which is larger than the opening angle (“FIG. 4 is a front view of one embodiment of the ultrasonic probe device of the present invention where the probe head is connected at its proximal end to the distal end of the elongated body. A transducer element on the convex surface of the distal end of the probe head can be seen.” [0013]. “Various types of probe heads are known and used in ultrasonic imaging, including convex … shaped probe heads.” [0029]. “User input device 56 is operably connected to central processing unit 52 and provides the means whereby the amplitude, frequency, and/or duration of pulses emitted from probe head 32 may be controlled. User input device 56 may also include controls whereby images displayed on display 54 are manipulated. The user input device may also have controllers that allow the clinician to adjust the sector scanning width (i.e., the width of the field of view on the image) for better imaging when e.g., going from a wide field of view to a narrower field of view. Such a feature would help to improve image quality when transitioning from e.g., a transvaginal/pelvic or procedural application that requires a wide field of view to a pediatric-related application that requires a more narrow field of view by reducing the amount of image splay.” [0046]. The device is capable to perform first control of generating the ultrasound image with a first angle of view which is larger than the opening angle, as claimed).
Therefore, based on Tsung’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined invention of Morimoto, Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka to employ the processor that is configured to perform first control of generating the ultrasound image with a first angle of view which is larger than the opening angle, as taught by Tsung, in order to facilitate ultrasound imaging with adjustable field of view depending on the task at hand.
Regarding claim 13, Morimoto modified by Kitahara, Segawa, Hiraoka, and Tsung teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 12.
Morimoto as modified by Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka does not teach that the processor is configured to further perform second control of generating the ultrasound image with a second angle of view which is smaller than the first angle of view.
However, in the ultrasonic imaging field of endeavor, Tsung discloses ultrasonic probe device and system and methods of generating ultrasonic images. Tsung teaches that the processor (52) is configured to perform second control of generating the ultrasound image with a second angle of view which is smaller than the first angle of view (“User input device 56 is operably connected to central processing unit 52 and provides the means whereby the amplitude, frequency, and/or duration of pulses emitted from probe head 32 may be controlled. User input device 56 may also include controls whereby images displayed on display 54 are manipulated. The user input device may also have controllers that allow the clinician to adjust the sector scanning width (i.e., the width of the field of view on the image) for better imaging when e.g., going from a wide field of view to a narrower field of view. Such a feature would help to improve image quality when transitioning from e.g., a transvaginal/pelvic or procedural application that requires a wide field of view to a pediatric-related application that requires a more narrow field of view by reducing the amount of image splay.” [0046]. The device is capable to perform first control of generating the ultrasound image with a first angle of view which is larger than the opening angle, as claimed).
Therefore, based on Tsung’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined invention of Morimoto, Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka to employ the processor that is configured to perform second control of generating the ultrasound image with a second angle of view which is smaller than the first angle of view, as taught by Tsung, in order to facilitate ultrasound imaging with adjustable field of view depending on the task at hand.
Regarding claim 14, Morimoto modified by Kitahara, Segawa, Hiraoka, and Tsung teaches the ultrasound endoscope according to claim 13.
Morimoto as modified by Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka does not teach that in a case of the second control, an ultrasound beam generated by a transducer group that generates the ultrasound beam corresponding to an end edge of the ultrasound image propagates more toward a center side of the transducer array compared to a case of the first control.
However, in the ultrasonic imaging field of endeavor, Tsung discloses ultrasonic probe device and system and methods of generating ultrasonic images. Tsung teaches that, in a case of the second control, an ultrasound beam generated by a transducer group (“a plurality of transducer elements which are arranged along a scan direction" [0030]) that generates the ultrasound beam corresponding to an end edge of the ultrasound image (an edge of the scanned sector) (“The transmit signals excite the transducer elements of transducer 32 to emit ultrasound waves." [0044]) propagates more toward a center side of the transducer array compared to a case of the first control (“User input device 56 may also include controls whereby images displayed on display 54 are manipulated. The user input device may also have controllers that allow the clinician to adjust the sector scanning width (i.e., the width of the field of view on the image) for better imaging when e.g., going from a wide field of view to a narrower field of view. Such a feature would help to improve image quality when transitioning from e.g., a transvaginal/pelvic or procedural application that requires a wide field of view to a pediatric-related application that requires a more narrow field of view by reducing the amount of image splay.” [0046]).
Therefore, based on Tsung’s teachings, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the combined invention of Morimoto, Kitahara, Segawa, and Hiraoka to have, in a case of the second control, an ultrasound beam generated by a transducer group that generates the ultrasound beam corresponding to an end edge of the ultrasound image propagates more toward a center side of the transducer array compared to a case of the first control, as taught by Tsung, in order to facilitate ultrasound imaging with adjustable field of view depending on the task at hand.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-1556. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday: 8:30am - 5:00pm.
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 on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXEI BYKHOVSKI/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798