DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments below filed 6/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive | moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
The Applicant asserts on pages 8-9 of the Response:
“First, Applicant respectfully submits that neither Nishigaki, Park, nor Davidsen teach or suggest an ultrasonic probe for biopsy needle visualization enhancement wherein the lateral ultrasonic acoustic fields generated by the two lateral element arrays are added to the ultrasonic acoustic field generated by the center element array in the elevation direction to obtain a laterally thicker ultrasonic acoustic field volume in the elevation direction.
The Examiner asserts that Fig. 5 of Nishigaki shows a thicker ultrasonic acoustic field volume in the elevation direction when the ultrasonic fields generated by the transducer Va and Vc are added to the ultrasonic field generated by the transducer Vb. However, as described in paragraph [0069], "the ultrasound beams by the transducer VA and VC need to cover (have directivity) the left and the right of the thinning ultrasound beam of the transducer VB. If there is a space (to be accurate a zone in which sensitivity of both ultrasound beams is low) in the directivity of the ultrasound beam of the transducer VA and the ultrasound beam of the transducer VB, or the directivity of the ultrasound beam of the transducer VC and the ultrasound beam of the transducer VB, it is difficult to catch the puncture needle 3 when the puncture needle 3 is positioned in the portion. Therefore, preferably, the shape of the acoustic lens is shaped so that the ultrasound beam of the transducer VA and the ultrasound beam of the transducer VC are deflected toward the inside." Nishigaki focuses on deflecting the ultrasound beams inward to ensure avoiding low sensitivity zone, and does not disclose thickening the acoustic field in the elevation direction.”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that even if the beams are deflected inward Fig. 5 of Nishigaki shows each of the beams emitted by each element and it can be seen that the combined field created by all three elements enlarges the effective range of the acoustic field in the elevation direction compared to the effective range of the acoustic field for only the center element.
The Applicant asserts on page 9 of the Response:
“Second, Applicant also respectfully submits that neither Nishigaki, Park, nor Davidsen teach or suggest an ultrasonic probe for biopsy needle visualization enhancement wherein a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array that is configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction.
On pages 8-9 of the outstanding Office Action, it is stated that Nishigaki discloses the height of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is not greater than the height of each element in the center element array. The Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that the elements are equal height to provide the ultrasonic fields shown in Figs. 5 and 11. However, Nishigaki discloses the elements of the two lateral element arrays and the element of the center element array have equal height, while the height of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array in the present invention. Further, as described above, Nishigaki does not disclose thickening the acoustic field in the elevation direction. However, in the present invention, as described in paragraphs [0081]-[0092] and figs 4-5, relatively smaller height of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays than the height of each element in the center element array can increase a divergent flare angle of the lateral acoustic beams al and shorten a near field regions generated by the lateral element arrays D1, thereby thickening the acoustic field in the elevation direction.”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that applicant’s arguments for the limitation of “wherein a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array” have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in this argument. As recited above Nishigaki shows that the two lateral elements enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction.
The Applicant asserts on pages 9-10 of the Response:
“Finally, Applicant respectfully submits that neither Nishigaki, Park, nor Davidsen teach or suggest an ultrasonic probe for biopsy needle visualization enhancement wherein the lateral ultrasonic acoustic fields generated by the two lateral element arrays partially overlap the ultrasonic acoustic field generated by the center element array, wherein the combined ultrasonic acoustic field has a hyperboloid shape thereby enlarging the effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction. The Examiner asserts that Fig. 5 and paragraph [0067] of Nishigaki - "the directivity of the ultrasound beam has a shape with a gentle sloping base, and the base of the ultrasound beams Ba, Bb, Be overlap" disclose the aforementioned. As discussed above, however, Nishigaki does not disclose enlarging the effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction.”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that as recited above Fig. 5 of Nishigaki shows the combined acoustic field which is enlarged compared to the acoustic field of the center element alone. Fig. 5 of Nishigaki also shows that the acoustic fields of the lateral element arrays partially overlap the acoustic field of the center element array.
The Applicant asserts on page 10 of the Response:
“Further, the Examiner asserts that 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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the two lateral element arrays being symmetrically tilted in an outward direction of Davidsen to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it "can achieve a large field of view in the near field without the use of an impractically large number of transducer elements" (Davidsen - [ 0010]).
Applicant respectfully submits that it would have not been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the two lateral element arrays being symmetrically tilted in an outward direction of Davidsen to achieve the same results. As discussed above, Nishigaki discloses three separate transducers Va, Vb, and Vc, but Nishigaki focuses on deflecting the ultrasound beams inward to ensure avoiding low sensitivity zone, and does not disclose thickening the acoustic field in the elevation direction. Unlike the present application and Nishigaki, Davidsen does not disclose separate transducers. The two-dimensional array of transducer is not separated and is a continuous array that is curved outward in the elevation direction to provide a large field of view. Thus, even if the combination of Nishigaki and Davidsen is assumed to be proper, the combination fails to teach that the separate transducers, the center element array and two lateral element arrays, of the present application are to thicken the acoustic field in the elevation direction. In addition, Park does not disclose thickening the acoustic field in the elevation direction.”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that even if the beams are deflected inward, the two lateral element arrays being symmetrically tilted in an outward direction would provide a larger field of view in the near field. Therefore there would be a larger field of view to image a biopsy needle in the near field. The Davidsen reference does not disclose an angle that the elements need to be tilted therefore one could create a small tilting angle to slightly increase field of view in the near field while also deflecting the beams inward.
The Applicant asserts on pages 10-11 of the Response:
“As discussed above, Nishigaki does not teach or suggest all of the limitations of claim 1 and Park and Davidsen do not resolve the deficiencies of Nishigaki. Further, Shimazaki, Meier, Van Soest, and Mason also do not resolve the deficiencies of Nishigaki. Shimazaki merely relies on teaching that each of the two lateral element arrays is provided with an independent control circuit capable of controlling a working state of the lateral element array. Meir merely relies on teaching that a control switch is mounted on the shell and used for performing manual control of the working states of the [...] arrays. Van Soest merely relies on teaching that the element of the [first] element array is made from a material different from that of the element of [the second] element arrays. Mason merely relies on teaching that each of the center element array and the two lateral element arrays is a curved linear array. Accordingly, at least due to its dependence from claim 1, claims 2-3, 5, 7-9, and 24-30 are likewise patentable over Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, Shimazaki, Meir, Van Soest, and Mason.”
In response the examiner respectfully asserts that as cited below Shimazaki teaches the limitation of “a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array”. Therefore Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki can be combined to teach claim 1.
Therefore in light of the responses above the pending claims remain rejected under 35 USC § 103.
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 1-3, 5, 7-9, and 24-30 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 claim 1, claim 1 recites “a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array that is configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction”. It is unclear what is configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field. It is unclear if the height of the two lateral element arrays, the height of each element in the center element array, or all elements combined enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction. The specification recites in paragraph [0053] of the pre-grant publication “The added lateral probe arrays increase the thickness of the hyperboloid, thereby enlarging the effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field”. Therefore for examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array, the two lateral element arrays configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction”.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “a hyperboloid shape that is configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction”. Claim 1 previously defined an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction. Therefore it is unclear if this is referring to the same effective range or a different effective range. For examination purposes the claim will be interpreted as “a hyperboloid shape that is configured to enlarge the effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction”.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7-9, and 24-30 are also rejected due to their dependency.
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 1-3, 5, 7, 9, are 24-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigaki (US 20190029644) and further in view of Park (US 20160143618), Davidsen (US 20080221454), and Shimazaki (US 5083568).
Regarding claim 1, Nishigaki discloses an ultrasonic probe ([0032] – “an ultrasound probe 2”) for biopsy needle visualization enhancement ([0010] – “an object of the present invention is to recognize a position of a recognition target such as a puncture needle in a subject more accurately and easily”, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art that a puncture needle could be a biopsy needle), comprising:
a center element array, designed to be capable of generating an ultrasonic acoustic field […], further comprising a plurality of elements arranged in an azimuth direction and arranged in a linear array ([0054] – “The transducer 210 includes transducer groups in three rows (row a, b, c) in the short axis direction and a plurality of columns of transducers (column 1, 2, etc.) in the long axis direction. To simplify explanation, the transducer group of row a is referred to as transducer VA, and similarly the transducer groups of the rows b, c, are referred to as transducers VB, VC”, therefore transducer group VB is the center row group of elements which can be interpreted as a 1D array of elements that are arranged in an azimuth direction which is shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 5 shows that each row is capable of generating an ultrasonic acoustic field, [0072] – “the high frequency linear probe”, therefore each row is linear);
two lateral element arrays, […] on two sides of the center element array respectively; the two lateral element arrays being arranged in parallel to the center element array, designed to be capable of generating lateral ultrasonic acoustic fields ([0054] – “The transducer 210 includes transducer groups in three rows (row a, b, c) in the short axis direction and a plurality of columns of transducers (column 1, 2, etc.) in the long axis direction. To simplify explanation, the transducer group of row a is referred to as transducer VA, and similarly the transducer groups of the rows b, c, are referred to as transducers VB, VC”, therefore transducer groups VA and VC are the two lateral element groups of elements which can be interpreted as a 1D arrays of elements that are arranged in parallel to the center element row which is shown in Fig. 3, Fig. 5 shows that each row is capable of generating an ultrasonic acoustic field, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize each row of elements would be capable of generating lateral ultrasonic acoustic fields, [0072] – “the high frequency linear probe”, therefore each row is linear),
wherein the center element array and the two lateral element arrays are arranged in an elevation direction perpendicular to the azimuth direction (Fig. 3 shows the arrangement of elements with the center element row and the two lateral element rows [Va, VB, and VC arranged in an elevation direction perpendicular to the azimuth direction);
wherein the lateral ultrasonic acoustic fields generated by the two lateral element arrays are added to the ultrasonic field generated by the center element array in the elevation direction to obtain a laterally thicker ultrasonic acoustic field volume in the elevation direction (Fig. 5 shows a thicker ultrasonic acoustic field volume in the elevation direction when the ultrasonic fields generated by the two lateral element rows are added to the ultrasonic field generated by the center element row); and
[…] the lateral ultrasonic acoustic fields generated by the two lateral element arrays partially overlap the ultrasonic acoustic field generated by the center element array;
configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction (as seen in both Figs 5 and 11 the lateral element arrays that contribute to the shape of the ultrasonic acoustic field enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction, Nishigaki discloses switches to turn the lateral element arrays on/off and one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize from Figs 5 and 11 that the combined ultrasonic acoustic field enlarges an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field)
wherein the combined ultrasonic acoustic field has a hyperboloid shape that is configured to enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction (Fig. 5, [0067] – “the directivity of the ultrasound beam has a shape with a gentle sloping base, and the base of the ultrasound beams Ba, Bb, Bc overlap”, as seen in both Figs 5 and 11 the lateral element arrays that contribute to the shape of the ultrasonic acoustic field enlarge an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field in the elevation direction, Nishigaki discloses switches to turn the lateral element arrays on/off and one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize from Figs 5 and 11 that the combined ultrasonic acoustic field with a hyperboloid shape enlarges an effective range of the ultrasonic acoustic field).
As shown in Figs. 1, 4a, and 4b the ultrasonic probe 2 appears to have a probe body and Fig. 3 shows element rows that appear to be physically separated from one another by an equal spacing conversely Nishigaki does not explicitly disclose a shell;
a center element array being mounted inside the shell,
two lateral element arrays, mounted on two sides of the center element array respectively,
wherein the two lateral element arrays are both: 1) physically separated from the center element array by an equal spacing and 2) mirror symmetrically tilted in an outward steering angle relative to the center element array,
wherein a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array.
However Park discloses a shell (Fig. 1 outer housing 24 with openings for modules 10);
a center element array being mounted inside the shell (Fig. 1 ultrasonic probe module 40, [0036] – “linear array ultrasonic probe module 40 disposed between the pair of the phased array ultrasonic probe modules 50”, [0030] – “The ultrasonic probe module 10 accommodated in the case 20”, ultrasonic probe module 10 includes ultrasonic probe modules 40 and 50),
two lateral element arrays, mounted on two sides of the center element array respectively (Fig. 1 ultrasonic probe modules 50, [0036] – “linear array ultrasonic probe module 40 disposed between the pair of the phased array ultrasonic probe modules 50”, [0030] – “The ultrasonic probe module 10 accommodated in the case 20”, ultrasonic probe module 10 includes ultrasonic probe modules 40 and 50),
wherein the two lateral element arrays are both: 1) physically separated from the center element array by an equal spacing (Fig. 1 separation housing 26, [0033] – “The separation housing 26 is disposed between the plurality of ultrasonic probe modules 10 to separate each of the ultrasonic probe modules 10”, it would be obvious to provide equal spacing between each of the array to prevent any blind spots of sensing and to provide uniform sensing in the elevation direction).
Park is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic probe design with three different rows/array of elements.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the separated element arrays of Park to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine “so that the ultrasonic probe modules 10 do not come in contact with each other and are not affected by vibrations of each other” (Park – [0033]).
Conversely Nishigaki and Park cannot be combined to teach wherein the two lateral element arrays are mirror symmetrically tilted in an outward steering angle relative to the center element array,
wherein a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array.
However Davidsen discloses wherein the two lateral element arrays are mirror symmetrically tilted in an outward steering angle relative to the center element array (Abstract – “An ultrasound imaging system includes an imaging probe having an array of transducer elements that is […] curved outwardly in the elevation direction”, it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art in view of Davidsen to make the two lateral element arrays are mirror symmetrically tilted in an outward steering angle relative to the center element array, additionally it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to tilt the two lateral element arrays in an outward steering angle relative to the center element array so that the ultrasonic fields still overlap so that blind spots of sensing can be avoided).
Davidsen is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic probe design with three different rows/array of elements.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the two lateral element arrays being symmetrically tilted in an outward direction of Davidsen to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “can achieve a large field of view in the near field without the use of an impractically large number of transducer elements” (Davidsen – [0010]).
Conversely Nishigaki, Park, and Davidsen cannot be combined to teach wherein a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array.
However Shimazaki discloses wherein a height, which is a length in the elevation direction, of each element in each of the two lateral element arrays is less than the height of each element in the center element array (Figs. 1-4, 6, and 7, Col. 2 lines 37-40 – “ultrasound oscillator generally designated at 11 includes a rectangular piezoelectric body, a major axis, a minor axis and a thickness of which are respectively defined in directions X, Y and Z”, Col. 2 lines 46-47 – “the central body is about twice the size of the side bodies”).
Shimazaki is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic probe design with three different rows/arrays of elements.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the height of the elements of Shimazaki to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to increase the focal depth while still having a good focal depth with only the center element, allowing one to change the focal depth.
Regarding claim 2, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki discloses transducers provided with a piezoelectric element conversely Nishigaki does not teach wherein an element of the center element array is made from one of a piezoceramic material, a piezoceramic composite material, a capacitive micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip, or a piezoceramic micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip; and an element of each of the two lateral element arrays is made from one of a piezoceramic material, a piezoceramic composite material, a piezoceramic single-crystal material, a capacitive micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip, or a piezoceramic micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip.
However Park discloses wherein an element of the center element array is made from one of a piezoceramic material ([0051] – “The linear array ultrasonic probe module 40 may include the piezoelectric ceramic 14”), a piezoceramic composite material, a capacitive micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip, or a piezoceramic micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip; and an element of each of the two lateral element arrays is made from one of a piezoceramic material ([0052] – “the piezoelectric ceramic 14 of the phased array ultrasonic probe module 50”), a piezoceramic composite material, a piezoceramic single-crystal material, a capacitive micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip, or a piezoceramic micro electro mechanical ultrasonic transducer chip.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the piezoceramic material for the arrays of Park to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine so that “the ultrasonic waves propagate in a fixed direction” (Park – [0051]), additionally one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize piezoceramic material are commonly used in ultrasonic transducer elements therefore they are widely available.
Regarding claim 3, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein the probe is a high frequency linear array probe or a convex array probe ([0072] – “the high frequency linear probe is used as the ultrasound probe 2”).
Regarding claim 5, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein the number of elements of each of the two lateral element arrays is equal to the number of elements of the center element array; and/or, the element pitch of each lateral element array is equal to the element pitch of the center element array (As shown in Fig. 3 the number of elements of each of the two lateral element rows is equal to the number of elements of the center element row).
Regarding claim 7, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein each of the two lateral element [..] is provided with an independent control circuit capable of controlling a working state of the lateral element […] manually or through an electronic signal ( [0051] – “The switch setting unit 24 stores the setting of the transmitting and the receiving sequence of the transducer 210 to perform the transmitting and receiving of the ultrasound in the short axis direction of the two-dimensional array of the transducers 210 (elevation direction) and switches the on and off of the switching element 230 corresponding to the transducers 210 according to the setting”, [0061] – “switches SWA, SWB, SWC of the switching element 230 corresponding to the above”, [0063] – “The switch SWA is a switch which can separately turn on and off the input of the driving signal to the transducers of the transducer VA and the output of the receiving signal from the transmitting/receiving switch 14 through the switch setting unit 24 and cable 5” the same is disclosed for switch SWC in para. [0063]).
Conversely Nishigaki does not teach wherein each of the two lateral element arrays is provided with an independent control circuit capable of controlling a working state of the lateral element arrays,
However Shimazaki discloses wherein each of the two lateral element arrays is provided with an independent control circuit capable of controlling a working state of the lateral element arrays (Abstract – “Ultrasound signals are transmitted and received by changing combination of the arrays associated with transmission and/or receiving of the ultrasound waves depending on a depth of an object for observation by using an ultrasound probe incorporating a plurality of unidimensional arrays”),
Shimazaki is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic probe design with three different rows/arrays of elements.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the two lateral element arrays being controlled as a whole of Shimazaki to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to change the focal point along the entire azimuth direction to provide an image of the length of the needle when it is inserted along the long axis of the probe.
Regarding claim 9, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein only the center element array is covered by an acoustic lens, or the center element array and the two lateral element arrays are all covered by acoustic lenses ([0053] – “FIG. 7 is a diagram showing the transducers VA, VB, and VC covered by a normal acoustic lens 220D”).
Regarding claim 24, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein the two lateral element […] are provided with independent control circuits, an electronic signal generated by a lateral control unit controls the working states of the two lateral element […], and the lateral control unit is operated through a user interface, or through a control switch, or automatically through a system control unit signal ([0051] – “The switch setting unit 24 stores the setting of the transmitting and the receiving sequence of the transducer 210 to perform the transmitting and receiving of the ultrasound in the short axis direction of the two-dimensional array of the transducers 210 (elevation direction) and switches the on and off of the switching element 230 corresponding to the transducers 210 according to the setting”, [0081] – “The controller 11 controls the transmitting/receiving switch 14 to switch the switching element 230 according to the transmitting/receiving sequence stored in the switch setting unit 24”, [0061] – “switches SWA, SWB, SWC of the switching element 230 corresponding to the above”, [0063] – “The switch SWA is a switch which can separately turn on and off the input of the driving signal to the transducers of the transducer VA and the output of the receiving signal from the transmitting/receiving switch 14 through the switch setting unit 24 and cable 5” the same is disclosed for switch SWC in para. [0063]).
Conversely Nishigaki does not teach wherein the two lateral element arrays are provided with independent control circuits, an electronic signal generated by a lateral control unit controls the working states of the two lateral element arrays,
However Shimazaki discloses wherein the two lateral element arrays are provided with independent control circuits, an electronic signal generated by a lateral control unit controls the working states of the two lateral element arrays (Abstract – “Ultrasound signals are transmitted and received by changing combination of the arrays associated with transmission and/or receiving of the ultrasound waves depending on a depth of an object for observation by using an ultrasound probe incorporating a plurality of unidimensional arrays”),
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the two lateral element arrays being controlled as a whole of Shimazaki to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to change the focal point along the entire azimuth direction to provide an image of the length of the needle when it is inserted along the long axis of the probe.
Regarding claim 25, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein the center element array remains turned on during imaging ([0073] – “in the parallel method, when the acoustic lens 220 is used, the switch SWB is turned on and the switches SWA, SWC are turned off, and the transmitting and receiving of the ultrasound is performed using the transducer VB”, therefore the probe of Nishigaki is capable of the center element array remaining turned on during imaging).
Regarding claim 26, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein the two lateral element arrays are turned on or off ([0073] – “the switch SWB is turned on and the switches SWA, SWC are turned off, and the transmitting and receiving of the ultrasound is performed using the transducer VB”) depending on presence of a needle body in an image ([0076] – “the transducers VA, VB, VC, and switches SWA, SWB, SWC, in order to obtain the reflecting wave (echo) of the puncture needle 3 outside the ultrasound beam Bb formed by the transducer VB”, [0107] – “The image processor 16 extracts the needle portion image of the puncture needle 3 from the three sets of B mode image data corresponding to the transducers VA, VB, VC of each row a, b, c and displays each extracted needle portion image with different colors so as to be able to discriminate the rows a, b, c”).
Regarding claim 27, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses wherein each element of the center element array and its corresponding elements of the two lateral element arrays are commonly coupled to a single transmit/receive unit, the transmit/receive unit being configured to transmit a pulse signal to the element of the center element array and its corresponding elements of the two lateral element arrays and receive electronic signals from the element of the center element array and its corresponding elements of the lateral element arrays when the center element array and the lateral element arrays are turned on ([0038] – “the transmitting/receiving switch 14 switches between transmitting the driving signal from the transmitting driver 12 to the transducer 210 when the transducer 210 emits (transmits) the ultrasound and outputting the receiving signal to the receiving processor 13 when the signal receiving the ultrasound emitted from the transducer 210 is obtained”, [0063] – “The switch SWA is a switch which can separately turn on and off the input of the driving signal to the transducers of the transducer VA and the output of the receiving signal from the transmitting/receiving switch 14 through the switch setting unit 24 and cable 5”, [0063] also discloses the same for switches SWB and SWC which are switches for transducers VB and VC).
Regarding claim 28, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Nishigaki further discloses further comprising: a first switch configured to couple or decouple a first one of the two lateral element arrays to a transmit/receive unit ([0063] – “The switch SWA is a switch which can separately turn on and off the input of the driving signal to the transducers of the transducer VA and the output of the receiving signal from the transmitting/receiving switch 14 through the switch setting unit 24”); and
a second switch configured to couple or decouple a second one of the two lateral element arrays to the transmit/receive unit ([0063] – “The switch SWC is a switch which can separately turn on and off the input of the driving signal to the transducers of the transducer VC and the output of the receiving signal from the transmitting/receiving switch 14 through the switch setting unit 24”),
wherein the first switch and second switch simultaneously couple the first one and the second one of the lateral element arrays to the transmit/receive unit to transmit a pulse signal when the lateral element arrays are turned on ([0047] – “switching elements 230 corresponded to each transducer 210”, [0051] – “The switch setting unit 24 stores the setting of the transmitting and the receiving sequence of the transducer 210 to perform the transmitting and receiving of the ultrasound in the short axis direction of the two-dimensional array of the transducers 210 (elevation direction) and switches the on and off of the switching element 230 corresponding to the transducers 210 according to the setting”).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigaki (US 20190029644), Park (US 20160143618), Davidsen (US 20080221454), and Shimazaki (US5083568) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meier (US20100312120).
Regarding claim 8, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claims 1 and 7.
As cited above Nishigaki discloses control of the two lateral element arrays through the use of switches conversely Nishigaki does not teach wherein a control switch is mounted on the shell and used for performing manual control of the working states of the […] arrays.
However Meier discloses wherein a control switch is mounted on the shell and used for performing manual control of the working states of the […] arrays ([0100] – “providing a switch mechanism coupled to the housing of block 13100 to select one of the first electronic array of block 13300 and the second electronic array of block 13400 as a source for an image to be presented”).
Meier is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic probe design with multiple different arrays of elements to image a needle.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the control switch mounted on the shell of Meier to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to more easily control the ultrasonic probe and what is being imaged by the probe by not having to use a second hand to provide input while the first hand is guiding the probe.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigaki (US 20190029644), Park (US 20160143618), Davidsen (US 20080221454), and Shimazaki (US5083568) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Van Soest (US 20180035891).
Regarding claim 29, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claims 1 and 2.
As cited above Nishigaki discloses the center element array and the lateral element arrays conversely Nishigaki does not teach wherein the element of the [first] element array is made from a material different from that of the element of [the second] element arrays.
However Van Soest discloses wherein the element of the [first] element array is made from a material different from that of the element of [the second] element arrays ([0012] – “The one or more ultrasound transducers may comprise a first transducer operable in a lower frequency range and a second transducer operable in a higher frequency range. The first transducer may comprise a piezoelectric polymer transducer or a piezoelectric composite transducer and the second transducer may comprise a piezoelectric ceramic transducer or a piezoelectric composite transducer”, therefore it would be obvious to provide different materials between the center element array and the two lateral element arrays to provide high frequency imaging and low frequency imaging).
Van Soest is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic transducer design with multiple different transducers to provide improved imaging of a target.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the two materials for the transducers of Van Soest to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows one to image at different depths with different spatial resolutions.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nishigaki (US 20190029644), Park (US 20160143618), Davidsen (US 20080221454), and Shimazaki (US5083568) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mason (US 5931785).
Regarding claim 30, Nishigaki, Park, Davidsen, and Shimazaki disclose all of the elements of the claimed invention as citied above in claim 1.
Conversely Nishigaki does not teach wherein each of the center element array and the two lateral element arrays is a curved linear array.
However Mason discloses wherein each of the center element array and the two lateral element arrays is a curved linear array (Col. 2 lines 31-33 – “A typical array includes a distribution of transducer elements in what is known as a 1.5D linear array or a 1.5D curved linear array (CLA) transducer probe”).
Mason is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasonic probe design with a center linear array and two lateral element arrays.
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 the probe of Nishigaki to incorporate the curved linear array of Mason to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it provides a wider far field image and has better conformity to the body compared to probes that are not curved.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 on 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