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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/04/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim interpretation
Examiner notes that the claim interpretations of claim 1 regarding “in response to determining…” have not been addressed by applicant’s arguments nor amendments and are maintained as the claim interpretation remains applicable despite other amendments to the claims.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112
New 112(b) rejections necessitated by amendment and upon further consideration.
Regarding prior art
Applicant's arguments filed 02/04/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For example, applicant argues “the ratio of the frame rate of the sub-volume to the volume being greater than 1 is a simple and static operational setting. However, amended claim 1 specifies that determining whether the ratio is less than a threshold is, in substance, a determination of whether enhancing the effective imaging region will cause an increased transmission count or lengthened transmission duration.. Thus determining whether the ratio is less than the threshold is a judgment condition for whether to perform enhanced imaging on the region of interest which improves the efficiency of image processing” (REMARKS pg. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that examiner notes that the system/method of Henderson is directed to applying/modifying the transmission parameters to meet a specific condition of a relationship between the sub-volume and volume. It is noted that in an instant where the transmission parameters already meet that relationship (e.g. are above a 1/1 ratio or the desired ratio as set forth in Col. 9 lines 5-10 that other possible sub-volume to main-volume rate relationships include 1.0, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, 3.0, 3.2, 4.0… in the example of fig. 2), it is noted that no transmission changes are required thus would not cause any increase in transmission count or lengthened transmission duration relative to the current settings. Thus it is noted that the determination of the ratio of the frame rate would necessarily be a determination of whether enhancing the effective imaging region will cause an increased transmission count or lengthened transmission duration. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Henderson with respect to the currently amended claims are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Henderson does not disclose a dynamically set threshold. The ratio comparison, which ensures the frame rate of the sub-volume is greater than that of the volume, in Henderson, relies on a fixed value (e.g., the ratio is greater than 1, and the threshold is 1). Henderson does not disclose a dynamically variable threshold based on a minimum frame rate demand of a specific imaging scene (e.g., 20 fps for carotid artery, 50 fps for heart imaging described in paragraph [0203] of the specification)” (REMARKS pg. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that Col. 9 lines 5-10 recite that other possible sub-volume to main volume rate relationships include 1, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, 3.0, 3.2, etc. and further discloses that a user may provide settings of the relationship throughout the procedure. Thus it is noted that the relationship (i.e. threshold) is dynamically set and is further according to any minimum frame rate demand of a specific imaging scene as the limitation is broadly recited and it is noted that the minimum frame rate demand may be the frame rate demand provided by the user for the specific scene. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Henderson with respect to the currently amended claims are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Since Henderson fails to disclose or suggest the specific and purposive determination of whether the ratio of the frame rate of the effective imaging region is greater than that of the global imaging region and dynamic threshold setting of amended independent claims 1 and 26, the dependent claims 2 and 35 ,which further include procedures in response to determining that the ratio is less than the threshold, are not anticipated by Henderson. Furthermore, Col.5, lines 30-54 of Henderson only discloses that the user may alter or change any of the values for the volume and/or the sub-volume scan in a general and unconditional manner. Thus, Henderson fails to disclose or suggest "in response to determining that the ratio is less than the threshold, such that enhancing the effective imaging region will cause the increased count of transmission times or the lengthened transmission time duration, adjusting a transmission parameter of a transmission to enhance an ultrasonic wave of the region of interest" recited in claims 2 and 35” (REMARKS pg. 12-13). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that as noted above, if the ratio is less than the threshold, the system will function to ensure that the ratio is changed to be above the threshold (i.e. the relationship value between the sub-volume and volume) and by doing so it will cause the increased count of transmission times or the lengthened transmission time duration in order to do so. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Henderson with respect to the currently amended claims are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “According to FIG. 2 and Col.8, lines 56-64 of Henderson, the volume and sub-volume are divided into different sets of slices. For example, the volume is divided into 8 slices with the serial numbers 0,3,6, 9, 12,15, 18, and 21. The sub-volume is divided into 5 slices with the serial numbers 1/8/16, 2/10/17, 4/11/19, 5/13/20, and 7/14/22). These slices are scanned in an interleaved numerical sequence of 1, 2, 3, 4,..., 20,21, and 22. The general process can be briefly described as inserting a slice of the volume after scanning a certain number of slices of the sub-volume. Therefore, Henderson can be understood as presetting time intervals to alternately obtain slices of the sub-volume and the slices of the volume. However, Henderson does not disclose using same array transmission array elements and alternate transmission to obtain the enhanced image of the region of interest and the global image of the global imaging region. Thus, Henderson fails to disclose or suggest "the enhanced imaging and the non-enhanced imaging are performed using an alternate transmission mode, the alternate transmission mode is performed, based on same array transmission array elements at preset time points, using an alternate transmission to obtain the enhanced image of the region of interest and the global image of the global imaging region" recited in amended claims 40 and 54. Thus, amended claims 40 and 54 are patentable over Henderson” (REMARKS pg. 13-14). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that it is clear that the slices are based on same array transmission array elements at preset time points and using alternate transmission (i.e. alternating at preset time intervals as pointed out by applicant). If applicant intends for the alternate transmission/based on same array transmission array elements at preset time points to mean something other than slice interleaving as taught by Henderson, examiner recommends amending the claims to more clearly define the nature of the alternate transmission. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Henderson with respect to the currently amended claims are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “analyzing strong reflectors is an inherent physical feature of the anatomy which is fundamentally different from performing a focal point sparsity analysis. However the focal point distribution in amended claim 41 (or the distribution of focal points in amended claim 55) is an arrangement in the region outside of the region of interest. The focal point sparsity analysis in amended claim 41 (or the sparsity analysis of focal points in amended claim 55) refers to analyzing the focal point distribution and focal point density in a region outside the region of interest, which is a property of the beamforming setup of the imaging system (REMARKS pg. 17-18)In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., property of the beamforming setup of the imaging system) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that the claims recite a focal point analysis/distribution, but does not specifically define the nature of the focal points other than that they are in a region outside of the region of interest, thus there is no requirement that the focal points of the claim are directed to property(ies) of the beamforming setup of the imaging system but are rather broadly recited as any points which may be the focus of the system/method which includes the strong reflectors of the anatomy of Van Rens. Examiner recommends amending the claims to more clearly define the focal points and their relationship to beamforming if this is intended by the claim. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Van Rens are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “one or more additional transmissions can be used to compensate for the ultrasonic energy in the compensation region by adjusting the corresponding transmission parameters to enhance the ultrasonic wave of the region of interest. This can enhance the acoustic wave in the region of interest as much as possible without sacrificing the reasonable acoustic energy requirements of other areas…. Clearly identifying and analyzing the strong reflectors of Van Rens cannot achieve this technical effect” (REMARKS pg. 18). Examiner notes that the claims are broadly recited and do not necessarily require the nature of the additional transmissions and how they compensate for the ultrasonic energy and it is noted that in [0052] of Van Rens additional transmissions are performed to mitigate noise/grating lobes from the strong reflectors, thus function to enhance the quality of image in the region of interest by mitigating such noise. Applicant’s arguments are merely conclusory that Van Rens cannot achieve the effect desired by applicant. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Van Rens are not found persuasive.
Finally applicant argues “In addition, Henderson is directed to optimizing frame rate and image quality for a sub-volume within a main volume scan. (Henderson, the abstract) Van Rens is directed to mitigating grating lobes caused by strong reflectors. If the element spacing of array transducers is greater than the ultrasonic wavelength, grating lobes will occur both during transmission and reception. Therefore, high-intensity regions are identified to reduce the impact of grating lobes caused by strong reflectors on the quality of ultrasonic images. (Van Rens, the abstract and paragraph [0052]) A person of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate the specific grating-lobe mitigation technique of Van Rens, which is tied to the problem of regular array spacing and strong reflectors, into the system for frame rate/image quality trade- off optimization of Henderson. Henderson and Van Rens address distinct technical problems with unrelated solutions. Henderson and Van Rens cannot be combined to discuss claim 41 and claim 55. (REMARKS pg. 18-19). In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Examiner respectfully disagrees with applicant’s arguments that they address distinct technical problems with unrelated solutions and that Henderson and Van Rens cannot be combined to discuss claims 41 and 55. Specifically, examiner notes that Van Rens is directed to obtaining optimizing imaging quality for a sub-volume and volume and one of the methods for doing so includes mitigating side lobes from strong reflectors, however, even if Van Rens did not provide teachings of a sub-volume and volume, it is noted that mitigating side lobes from strong reflectors would be beneficial to any system which aims to provide high quality ultrasound images including that of Henderson. Applicant’s arguments that they cannot be combined are merely conclusory and do not provide any sufficient support/evidence that the teachings of Van Rens would not be applicable to the teachings of Henderson to obtain the claimed invention of claims 41 and 55. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the combination of Henderson and Van Rens are not found persuasive.
Claim Interpretation
Claim 1 recites the limitations “in response to determining that the ratio is not less than the threshold”. Examiner notes that the limitation is contingent on the condition of determining that the relationship data satisfies the condition and determining that the relationship data does not satisfy the condition, respectively. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met (See MPEP 2111). Thus it is interpreted that the prior art need only teach determining whether the ratio is less than a threshold, but need not teach method steps performed in response to determining that the ratio is not less than the threshold (e.g. if the prior art method teaches steps performed in response to determining that the ratio is less than the threshold). Examiner recommends amending the claims to positively recite determining that the ratio is not less than the threshold in order to avoid such contingent language in the claims.
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 1-4, 6, 26, 35-36, 39-42, and 53-56 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.
Claims 1 and 26 recites the limitation “determine/determining a ratio of a frame rate of an effective imaging region to a frame rate of the global imaging region”. It is unclear if the frame rates are current frame rates (i.e. frame rates of the initial image), if these are desired frame rates, or some other frame rate associated with the corresponding region. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any frame rate associated with the region including the current or desired frame rates, however, clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 26 recite the limitation “determine/determining whether enhancing the effective imaging region causes an increased count of transmission times or a lengthened transmission time duration by determining whether the ratio is less than a threshold”. The limitation is unclear as to what is meant by determining whether enhancing the effective imaging region causes an increased count of transmission times or a lengthened transmission time duration. In other words, the metes and bounds of what enhancing the effective imaging region entails and how it would or would not cause an increased count of transmission times or a lengthened transmission time duration. In other words, it is unclear what about enhancing an effective imaging region would cause such increased count or lengthened time. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted that the method/processor determines whether the ratio is less than a threshold, however, clarification is required.
Claims 1 and 26 recite the limitation “wherein the threshold is dynamically set according to a minimum frame rate demand in an imaging scene associated with the initial image”. The limitation is unclear as to what is meant by a minimum frame rate demand. In other words, it is unclear if the minimum frame rate demand is or corresponds with any of the previously recited frame rates or if this is a different frame rate demand. It is further unclear what defines a minimum frame rate demand (e.g. a user defined minimum, industry standard, etc.). For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean any frame rate demand, however, clarification is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 6, 26, 35-36, 39-40, 42, 53-54and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Henderson et al. (US 10194888 B2), hereinafter Henderson
Regarding claims 1 and 26,
Henderson discloses method for ultrasonic imaging, implemented on a computing device having at least one processing device and at least one storage device (pg. 17 which discloses the memory 26 is a non-transitory computer readable media. The instructions for implementing the processes/methods and/or techniques discussed herein are provided on the computer-readable storage media or memories, such as a cache, buffer, RAM, removal media, hard drive or other computer readable storage media), the method comprising:
Determining a region of interest in an initial image, where the initial image includes a global imaging region, and the region of interest is in the global imaging region (Col. 6 lines 1-9 which discloses processor detects anatomy from the data of the initial scan. The data representing the volume of the patient is processed to detect the anatomy of interest. For example, the user translates and/or rotates the field of view (i.e., moves the transducer) relative to the patient to locate the anatomy. Once the anatomy is in the field of view, the processor detects the anatomy. For example, a valve is automatically detected from B-mode data representing a volume including at least a portion of a heart and the processor assigns a sub-volume around or based on the detected anatomy. And Col. 6 lines 40-53 Where the detected anatomy is the anatomy of interest, the sub-volume is positioned to encompass the anatomy of interest with a minimum margin, such as 0.5 cm. When detected, the processor defines a sub-volume around the feature or anatomy. The sub-volume has any shape, such as a cube, sphere, or other shape. The sub-volume is sized to meet the margin while including all of the anatomy of interest. The sub-volume may be sized and shaped as the anatomy of interest with no or a given margin. In other embodiments, the sub-volume is positioned based on anatomy other than the anatomy of interest, such as positioning the sub-volume for a valve based on detection of a left ventricle);
Determining a ratio of a frame rate of an effective imaging region of the region of interest to a frame rate of the global imaging region, wherein the effective imaging region refers to an actual imaging region including the region of interest (Col. 7 lines 37-40 which discloses the sub-volume is scanned with a greater frame rate, resolution, contrast, or combinations thereof as compared to the larger volume and Col. 7 lines 32-55 which disclose in the valve example, the scan settings for the sub-volume scan are optimized for valve imaging such as having a greater frame rate than the volume. See also col. 8 lines 45-48 disclosing yielding an effective ratio between the sub-volume frame rate and the main-volume frame rate and Col. 9 lines 5-10 disclosing that other possible sub-volume to main-volume rate relationships include 1.0, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, 3.0, 33.2, 4.0… in the example of fig. 2) Examiner notes that such optimization/setting of frames rates requires determining such a ratio of a frame rate);
Determining whether enhancing the effective imaging region causes an increased count of transmission times or a lengthen transmission time duration by determining whether the ratio is less than a threshold (Col. 7 lines 37-40 which discloses the sub-volume is scanned with a greater frame rate, resolution, contrast, or combinations thereof as compared to the larger volume and Col. 7 lines 32-55 which disclose in the valve example, the scan settings for the sub-volume scan are optimized for valve imaging such as having a greater frame rate than the volume. Examiner notes that such setting of scan settings to include determining whether that ratio between frame rate of the effective imaging region (i.e. the sub-volume) and the frame rate of the global region (i.e. the volume) is less than a threshold (i.e. is greater than a ratio of 1/1 or greater than 0). See also col. 8 lines 45-48 disclosing yielding an effective ratio between the sub-volume frame rate and the main-volume frame rate); wherein the threshold is dynamically set according to a minimum frame rate demand in an imaging scene associated with the initial image (Col. 9 lines 5-10 that other possible sub-volume to main-volume rate relationships include 1.0, 1.6, 2.0, 2.4, 3.0, 33.2, 4.0… in the example of fig. 2 and Col. 5 lines 60-67 which discloses in other embodiments, configurability of the sub-volume and/or volume imaging is still available during the live imaging. The user may alter one or more values of scan parameters without being required or expected to alter as part of the normal workflow. Examiner thus notes the threshold (e.g. 1.0, 1.6, etc.) is dynamically set. See also Col. 9 lines 10-15 which discloses the processor finds a minimum product M*N, with M>N, such that minimum target frame rate of sub-volume is achieved. Examiner thus notes that threshold is thus dynamically set according to the minimum target frame rate of the sub-volume) and
In response to determining that the ratio is not less than the threshold, such that enhancing the effective imaging region will not cause the increased count of transmission times or the lengthened transmission time duration;
Performing a synchronous operation that includes:
an enhanced imaging of a region of interest and a non-enhanced imaging covering the global imaging region to obtain an image of the global imaging region (Col. 3 lines 23-26 which disclose the volume and sub-volume scanning may be interleaved slice-by-slice, allowing more refined trade-off of frame rate with image quality than by interleaving full volume scan with full sub-volume scan. Interleaving of sub-volume and main-volume scanning may be performed on the basis of azimuth sweeps)
and performing an image compounding operation on the enhanced image and the global image to obtain an optimized image (Col. 9 lines 23-34 which discloses the data representing the sub-volume is combined with the data representing the volume. The samples acquired by separate scanning of the sub-volume and volume are combined by a filter or processor. Where the volume scan is of parts other than the sub-volume, the combination provides a data set representing the entire volume without overlap. Where the volume scan includes the sub-volume, the data for the overlap is averaged, a maximum selected, a minimum selected, or otherwise combined for any locations represented in both data sets. The resulting data after combination represents the volume, but with enhanced information in the sub-volume)
Examiner notes that the method of Henderson is necessarily performed by a system having corresponding structure and function of claim 26.
Regarding claims 2 and 35,
Henderson further discloses further comprising:
In response to determining that the ratio is less than the threshold, such that enhancing the effective imaging region will cause the increase count of transmission times or the lengthened transmission time duration, adjusting a transmission parameter of a transmission to enhance an ultrasonic wave of the region of interest (Col. 5 lines 30-54 which disclose the user may alter or change any of the values for the volume and/or sub-volume scan. And as another example, the user selects a relative frame-rate between the main-volume (e.g., entire volume) and the sub-volume. Examiner notes that upon altering or changing the value of the volume (i.e. to a value in which the ratio is less than the threshold or in other words the frame rate of the sub-volume is less than the frame rate of the volume), that the system/method adjusts a transmission parameter (e.g. frame rate or frequency and/or line density as disclosed in Col. 4 lines 30-54).
Regarding claims 3 and 36,
Henderson further discloses wherein the transmission parameter of the transmission includes at least one of: a transmission mode, a transmission aperture parameter, a transmission focal point parameter, a transmission frequency (Col. 5 lines 30-54 which disclose the user may alter or change any of the values for the volume and/or sub-volume scan. And As another example, the user selects a relative frame-rate between the main-volume (e.g., entire volume) and the sub-volume. I Examiner notes that upon altering or changing the value of the volume (i.e. to a value in which the ratio is less than the threshold or in other words the frame rate of the sub-volume is less than the frame rate of the volume), that the system/method adjusts a transmission parameter (e.g. frame rate or frequency and/or line density as disclosed in Col. 4 lines 30-54. Where examiner notes that transmission mode, transmission aperture parameter, transmission focal point parameter are broadly recited and thus include any parameter change/value change associating with transmission, apertures, or focal point including frame rate, frequency, line density, etc.)
Regarding claims 4 and 39,
Henderson further discloses wherein the transmission mode includes at least one of: a focused transmission (Claim 10 which discloses a focus depth or transmit focus on the scan of the sub-volume)
Regarding claim 6 and 53,
Henderson further discloses wherein the determining the region of interest in the initial image includes: determining the region of interest according to at least one of an artificial intelligence automatic identification algorithm, an automatic tracking algorithm, or a touch screen and/or non-touch screen operation instruction (Col. 6 lines 10-26 which discloses The detection is automatic during the live imaging. Rather than requiring user input of a location or locations for the anatomy, the processor applies filtering, edge detection, pattern matching, model matching, or other computer assisted classification to detect the anatomy in the data. In one embodiment, a machine-learnt classifier is applied. Haar, gradient, directional, or other features are calculated from the volume data and input to the machine-learnt classifier. The machine-learnt classifier, based on learning from training data with known truth distinguishing anatomy of interest from other tissue or fluid, indicates whether the anatomy is represented by the data for the volume and where. Any machine learning may be used, such as a probabilistic boosting tree, Bayesian network, neural network, or support vector machine. Any feature or feature set may be used)
Regarding claim 40 and 54,
Henderson further discloses wherein the enhanced imaging and the non-enhanced imaging are performed using an alternate transmission mode (Col. 3 lines 23-26 which disclose the volume and sub-volume scanning may be interleaved slice-by-slice where such enhanced imaging and non-enhanced imaging is considered an alternate transmission mode in its broadest reasonable interpretation), the alternate transmission mode is performed, based on same array transmission array elements at preset time points, using an alternate transmission to obtain the enhanced image of the region of interest and the global image of the global imaging region (Col. 3 lines 23-26 which disclose the volume and sub-volume scanning may be interleaved slice-by-slice where such enhanced imaging and non-enhanced imaging is considered an alternate transmission mode which is based on same array transmission array elements at preset times in its broadest reasonable interpretation)
Regarding claims 42 and 56,
Henderson further discloses wherein the performing the image compounding operation on the enhanced image and the global image includes: performing one or more operations of weighted compounding, frequency domain compounding, and edge enhancement on the enhanced image and the global image (Col. 10 lines 15-44 disclosing weighted averaging for combining the sub-volume data and the volume data)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 41 and 55 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Henderson in view of Van Rens et al. (US 20180306919 A1), hereinafter Van Rens.
Regarding claims 41 and 55,
Henderson teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Henderson fails to explicitly teach wherein the adjusting the transmission parameter includes: analyzing, by performing a focal point sparsity analysis, a focal point distribution in a region outside the local imaging region to determine a compensation region which meets a preset focal point distribution condition, wherein the focal point distribution in the region outside the region of interest is an arrangement of focal points in the region outside the region of interest; and performing one or more additional transmissions to perform an ultrasonic wave energy compensation on the compensation region.
Van Rens, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches wherein the adjusting the transmission parameter includes: analyzing, by performing a focal point sparsity analysis ([0052] which discloses the identified location of strong reflectors, for example r1 and r2 are analyzed by the interferer analyzer. Examiner notes such analysis is considered a focal point sparsity analysis in its broadest reasonable interpretation) a focal point distribution in a region outside the region of interest to determine a compensation region which meets a preset focal point distribution ([0052] which discloses the identified location of the strong reflectors, for example r1 and r2 are analyzed by the interferer analyzer and see fig. 5 depicting R1 and R2 are outside of the local imaging region (ROI 82’). Such identification of the strong reflectors is considered an analysis of a focal point distribution and the compensation region which meets a preset focal point distribution is considered the region containing the strong reflectors R1 and R2 which meets a preset focal distribution (i.e. the focal point distribution of the strong reflectors already existing thus preset)), wherein the focal point distribution in the region outside of the region of interest is an arrangement of focal points in the region outside of the region of interest (i.e. the arrangement of the strong reflectors R1 and R2)
Performing one or more additional transmissions to perform an ultrasonic wave energy compensation on compensation region ([0052] which discloses the interferer analyzer further adapts the beam steering parameters of the beams steered within the ROI, such that the effect of the grating lobes originating from the strong reflectors is mitigated. This can be done by reducing the frequency of the beams within the ROI below the threshold value).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Henderson to include adjusting a transmission parameter as taught by Van Rens in order to mitigate the effect of grating lobes originating from strong reflectors (Van Rens [0052]), thereby further enhancing the quality of the data found in the local imaging region.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE L KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached on 5712700552. 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.
/BROOKE LYN KLEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797