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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8, 14, and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Freiburger et al. (US 2004/0054285 A1, Mar. 18, 2004) (hereinafter “Freiburger”) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Freiburger et al. (US 2004/0054285 A1, Mar. 18, 2004) (hereinafter “Freiburger”) in view of Hansen et al. (US 2013/0258805 A1, Oct. 3, 2013) (hereinafter “Hansen”).
Regarding claims 1 and 26: Freiburger discloses a diagnostic ultrasound apparatus comprising a computer and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a program that causes the computer to function as: a sound ray signal generator that generates a sound ray signal based on a reception signal obtained from an ultrasound probe that transmits and receives ultrasound to and from a subject ([0016]-[0017], receiver 16); an imaging signal generator that performs filtering of passing different bands on the sound ray signal to generate multiple imaging signals from the sound ray signal, the different bands including a full band corresponding to a normal imaging signal and a plurality of additional bands that are different portions of the full band ([0017] – “…the receiver 16 is operable to receive through a single aperture in response to the transmit event”, [0018] – “…two or more separate filters are provided for substantially simultaneously isolating information at two different frequency bands from the same or different apertures”, receiver 16); and a calculator that performs a multiplication operation wherein the multiplication operation is a multiplication of brightness values of corresponding pixels at the same position in respective images that correspond to the imaging signals ([0035]- “…the frames of data are acquired in response to the same transmit and receive frequencies and the same bandwidths”, [0036]).
In the alternative, while Freiburger clearly indicates that compounding image data at corresponding locations in respective image frames can be performed via multiplication of the image data including multiplication is performed at corresponding locations in different frames, Freiburger is silent on the details of the multiplication
Hansen, in the same field of endeavor, teaches compounding images including images that have been subjected to band-pass filtering having different frequency content ([0012], [0016]), where the compounding includes multiplication of brightness values of corresponding pixels at the same position in respective images that correspond to the imaging signals ([0015], [0052], [0090]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the compounding multiplication of Freiburger as taught by Hansen, in order to achieve a high-quality compounded image, because the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395).
Regarding claim 8: Freiburger further discloses a transmitter that generates a drive signal containing fundamentals of different frequencies and that outputs the generated drive signal to the ultrasound probe, wherein the sound ray generator generates the sound ray signal having harmonic components of the fundamentals ([0018], [0035]).
Regarding claim 14: Freiburger further discloses wherein the imaging signals are image data ([0011]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kamiyama (US 2010/03122112 A1, Dec. 9, 2010) (hereinafter “Kamiyama”).
Regarding claim 6: Freiburger, or Freiburger and Hansen, disclose the diagnostic ultrasound apparatus according to claim 1, including processing the compounded (B-mode) image for display ([0021]-[0023]) but is silent on wherein the calculator performs a look up table conversion process on an arithmetically-processed imaging signal that is obtained by the arithmetic operation among the imaging signals.
Kamiyama, in the same field of endeavor, discloses preparing a B-mode image for display using a look-up table ([0029]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the display processing of the compounded image of Freiburger, or Freiburger and Hansen, using a look-up table as taught by Kamiyama because the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results (KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Taniguchi (US 2018/0116631 A1, May 3, 2018) (hereinafter “Taniguchi”).
Regarding claim 7: Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen, disclose the diagnostic ultrasound apparatus according to claim 1 but are silent on wherein a fractional bandwidth of -20 dB of the ultrasound probe is 100% or more.
Taniguchi, in the same field of endeavor, teaches imaging microstructure using a probe having a fractional bandwidth of -20 dB that is 100% or more ([0059]). Taniguchi further teaches that these probe characteristics are important for preserving the fine granularity of the microstructure ([0056]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to operate the probe of Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen in the manner taught by Taniguchi in order to better preserve the fine granularity of the microstructure.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Guruprasad, Prathima. "Overview of different thresholding methods in image processing." TEQIP sponsored 3rd national conference on ETACC. 2020 (hereinafter “Guruprasad”).
Regarding claim 9: Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen, disclose the diagnostic ultrasound apparatus according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the calculator converts a brightness value of the imaging signals equal to or less than a certain value to zero before performing the multiplication operation.
Guruprasad, in the same problem solving area of digital image processing, teaches that a well-known type of image thresholding is “threshold to zero” (also known as “to-zero thresholding”), which is performed by converting a brightness value of imaging signals equal to or less than a certain value to zero (number 4, “threshold to zero”). Guruprasad further teaches that it may be desirable to apply processing to an image for enhancing data images, which involves removing low-frequency background noise, normalizing the intensity of the individual particles images, removing reflections, and masking portions of images (Introduction).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to pre-process the image signals by applying the well-known “threshold to zero” approach as taught by Guruprasad in order to remove any undesirable low-intensity noise or background from the image signals.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sabourin et al. (US 2005/0053308 A1, Mar. 10, 2005) (hereinafter “Sabourin”).
Regarding claim 10: Freiburger or Freiburger and Hansen, disclose the diagnostic ultrasound apparatus according to claim 1, including a display controller ([0023]), but are silent on a first display controller that displays a normal image and an arithmetically-processed image side by side simultaneously on a display, the normal image being based on a normal imaging signal on which the arithmetic operation is not performed, the arithmetically-processed image being based on an arithmetically-processed imaging signal that is generated by the arithmetic operation among the imaging signals.
Sabourin, in the same field of endeavor, discloses an ultrasound imaging system which provides optional image compounding comprises a first display controller that displays a normal image and an arithmetically-processed image side by side simultaneously on a display, the normal image being based on a normal imaging signal on which the arithmetic operation is not performed (non-compounded image), the arithmetically-processed image (compounded image) being based on an arithmetically-processed imaging signal that is generated by the arithmetic operation among the imaging signals (figs. 2 and 4, [0013]-[0014], [0023], [0028]). Sabourin teaches that compounding can sometimes cause the loss detail in the images ([0002]) and the side-by-side of compounded and non-compounded images allows the user to compare the images and determine if compounding has obscured any information in the image ([0013]-[0014]).
It would have been prima facie obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Freiburger, or Freiburger and Hansen, to display the compounded (“arithmetically-processed image being based on an arithmetically-processed imaging signal that is generated by the arithmetic operation among the imaging signals”) and non-compounded (“normal imaging signal on which the arithmetic operation is not performed”) images side-by-side as taught by Sabourin in order to allow the user to compare the images and evaluate the effect of the compounding.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 11, and dependents thereof, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 01/08/2026, have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Freiburger and Hansen do not disclose, teach, or suggest that one band is a full band and other bands that are portions of the full band. Applicant asserts that Freiburger discloses that multiple frames of data of a target are obtained by different elevation apertures and the data is then compounded, and frequency compounding may also be used where one frame is acquired in response to one frequency band and another frame of data is acquired in response to a different frequency band.
Examiner respectfully notes that while Freiburger does disclose these two features, they reflect only one embodiment of Freiburger. Freiburger additionally provides alternative embodiments that perform signal separation (filtering) on a signal (“normal imaging signal”) received via a single aperture in response to a single transmit event ([0017] – “…the receiver 16 is operable to receive through a single aperture in response to the transmit event”, [0018] – “…two or more separate filters are provided for substantially simultaneously isolating information at two different frequency bands from the same or different apertures”) and generating the frames of data from filtering signals received from a same transmit and receive frequency corresponding to a same bandwidth (“full band”) ([0035]- “…the frames of data are acquired in response to the same transmit and receive frequencies and the same bandwidths”).
As a related matter, Examiner notes that the text of the separate rejection of claims 1, 8, 14, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by US 2004/0054285 (Freiburger) is removed from the action. Since this rejection essentially duplicates the grounds of the 102/103 rejection over Freiburger or Freiburger in view of Hansen, this section of text is removed to improve readability of the Office Action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wilhjelm, Jens E., et al. "Visual and quantitative evaluation of selected image combination schemes in ultrasound spatial compound scanning." IEEE transactions on medical imaging 23.2 (2004): 181-190. – discloses a spatial compounding technique including multiplying n image signals of the same imaging region acquired at different angles and taking the nth root (“power root”) of the product
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CAROLYN A PEHLKE whose telephone number is (571)270-3484. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00am - 5:00pm (Central Time), Monday - Friday.
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, Chris 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.
/CAROLYN A PEHLKE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3799