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 Amendment
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed 04/09/2026, are accepted and appreciated by the
Examiner.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 04/09/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 102 have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of the amendments. Sokulin does not explicitly teach “wherein for each transducer element: the analysis module is configured to analyze ultrasound signals received at that transducer element to identify a respective feature in the received ultrasound signals, and the gating module is configured to gate ultrasound signals received at that transducer element in dependence on the respective identified feature.” Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, Sokulin does teach receiving a multi-gated signal which contains the signals from a group of transducers, where each of those signals is analyzed to select gates based on different anatomical structures in the region of interest. (Para. [0021] and Fig. 5) As a result, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Sokulin (US 20200178935 A1) and Robert (US 20130094328 A1).
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.
Claims 1, 2 ,5, 6, 13, 15, 16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokulin (US 20200178935 A1) in view of Robert (US 20130094328 A1).
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Sokulin teaches,
a transducer module comprising a plurality of transducer elements arranged in an array, the transducer module being configured to transmit ultrasound signals towards an object and to receive ultrasound signals reflected from the object whereby data pertaining to an internal structure of the object can be obtained; (Para. [0021] teaches “The transmitter 102 may comprise suitable logic, circuitry, interfaces and/or code that may be operable to drive an ultrasound probe 104. The ultrasound probe 104 may comprise a two-dimensional (2D) array of piezoelectric elements. The ultrasound probe 104 may comprise a group of transmit transducer elements 106 and a group of receive transducer elements 108, that normally constitute the same elements. In certain embodiment, the ultrasound probe 104 may be operable to acquire ultrasound image data covering at least a substantial portion of an anatomy, such as the heart, a blood vessel, or any suitable anatomical structure.” (i.e. the elements are in an array and the object is a body.)
an analysis module coupled to the transducer module and configured to analyze ultrasound signals (Fig. 1 shows signal processor 132 which is viewed as the analysis module. Para. [0022] teaches “The transmitted ultrasonic signals may be back-scattered from structures in the object of interest, like blood cells or tissue, to produce echoes. The echoes are received by the receive transducer elements 108.” (i.e. receiving signals and identifying features).)
and a gating module configured to gate received ultrasound signals received at each of the plurality of transducer elements in dependence on the respective identified features. (Para. [0032] teaches “For example, the gate selection module 140 may select one of the gates based on a strongest Doppler signal strength by choosing in each sample time the gate that produces the maximal sum of absolute or squared spectrum values.”)
Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
wherein for each transducer element: the analysis module is configured to analyze ultrasound signals received at that transducer element to identify a respective feature in the received ultrasound signals, and the gating module is configured to gate ultrasound signals received at that transducer element in dependence on the respective identified feature.
Robert teaches,
wherein for each transducer element: the analysis module is configured to analyze ultrasound signals received at that transducer element to identify a respective feature in the received ultrasound signals, (Para. [0052] teaches “To this end, the instructions 126 are designed to transmit control signals C.sup.p={C.sub.1.sup.p, . . . , C.sub.N.sup.p } to the transducers 114.sub.1 . . . 114.sub.N, where C.sub.n.sup.p is the command transmitted to the transducer 114.sub.n that is to have an emission delay L.sub.n.sup.p. These control signals C.sup.p are designed so that the transducers 114.sub.1 . . . 114.sub.N each emit a pulse ultrasonic wave of pseudo time period T, the pulses being thus offset in time some with respect to the others of the emission delays L.sup.p.”)
and a gating module configured to gate received ultrasound signals. (Para. [0053] teaches “The instructions 128 are also designed to record the measurement signals S.sup.p. In the embodiment described, the instructions 128 are designed to record the measurement signal S.sub.n.sup.p of each transducer 114.sub.n on a time gate of predetermined duration and beginning for example when the control signal C.sub.n.sup.p of this transducer 114.sub.n is sent.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Sokulin wherein for each transducer element: the analysis module is configured to analyze ultrasound signals received at that transducer element to identify a respective feature in the received ultrasound signals, and the gating module is configured to gate ultrasound signals received at that transducer element in dependence on the respective identified feature. such as that of Robert. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify Sokulin, because gating each transducer for a time duration would allow only certain signals from each transducer to return to the receiver in the time frame and therefore, only certain depths in the object would be measured at the location of that particular transducer. This would allow a larger range of depths to be measured. Depths which could correspond to desired structures in the object. Furthermore, Robert teaches in Para. [0054] that gating the transducers in this way could also be used to account for differences in distance from each transducer to the object which would allow for a more accurate image.
With respect to claim 2, Sokulin further teaches,
A scanning system according to claim 1, in which the analysis module is configured to identify a penetration echo in the received ultrasound signals (Para. [0023] teaches “The group of receive transducer elements 108 in the ultrasound probe 104 may be operable to convert the received echoes into analog signals,”
and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to selectively retain signals received after the penetration echo. (Fig. 1 shows that the gating happens in the gate selection module after the signal is received by receiver 118. Para. [0037] teaches “each of the Doppler signals 321-326 of the MGD signal 320 selected by the gate selection module 140 and processed by the parameter application module 150”)
With respect to claim 5, Sokulin further teaches,
A scanning system according to claim 1, in which the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals in accordance with a gating function selected from a group of gating functions. (Para. [0032] teaches “In certain embodiments, the gate selection module 140 may apply a plurality of the above-mentioned criterion to select the gate corresponding to each of the multiple different desired anatomical structures. For example, the gate selection module 140 may weigh the spectrum tracking and the resemblance of the B-mode image frame features to select the appropriate gate corresponding to a particular desired anatomical structure in the region of interest.” (i.e. plurality of criteria seen as function.)
With respect to claim 6, Sokulin further teaches,
a scanning system according to claim 5, in which the gating module is configured to select the gating function based on one or more of: a material of an object for scanning; a structure of an object for scanning; a depth of a feature of interest; a flaw to be investigated; a thickness of an object for scanning; a coupling medium to be used between the transducer module and an object for scanning; and a gating selection signal received by the gating module. (Para. [0032] teaches “In certain embodiments, the gate selection module 140 may apply a plurality of the above-mentioned criterion to select the gate corresponding to each of the multiple different desired anatomical structures. For example, the gate selection module 140 may weigh the spectrum tracking and the resemblance of the B-mode image frame features to select the appropriate gate corresponding to a particular desired anatomical structure in the region of interest.” (i.e. anatomical structure.)
With respect to claim 13 and 16, Sokulin further teaches,
A scanning system according to claim 1, in which the scanning system comprises an image generator configured to generate an image scan representative of structural features below a surface of an object in dependence on the received ultrasound signals; (Para. [0035] teaches “Referring to FIG. 4, a display system 134 may present a 2D ultrasound image 410. The 2D ultrasound image 410 may be a B-mode image, color Doppler image, or any suitable 2D image, being acquired by the ultrasound system 100.” (i.e. fig. 4 shows the image is below the surface of the object) Para. [0041] teaches “generating an output displayable by a display system 134, and manipulating the output in response to input information from a user input module 130,” (i.e. the signal processor is viewed as the image generator.)
a display coupled to the image generator and configured to display the image scan; (Fig. 1 shows display system 134)
and a user input device configured to generate an indication signal whereby a user can indicate a portion of the displayed image scan; (Fig. 1 shows display system 134)
the analysis module being configured to identify the feature in response to the generated indication signal. (Para. [0022] teaches “The transmitted ultrasonic signals may be back-scattered from structures in the object of interest, like blood cells or tissue, to produce echoes.” (i.e. identifying features).)
With respect to claim 25, Sokulin further teaches,
A method according to claim 15, in which the analysis module is configured to identify a penetration echo in the received ultrasound signal in which analyzing ultrasound signals received at each of the plurality of transducer elements comprises identifying a penetration echo in the received ultrasound signals, (Para. [0023] teaches “The group of receive transducer elements 108 in the ultrasound probe 104 may be operable to convert the received echoes into analog signals,”
and gating the ultrasound signals received at each of the plurality of transducer elements in dependence on the respective identified features comprises gating the received ultrasound signals to selectively retain signals received after the penetration echo. (Fig. 1 shows that the gating happens in the gate selection module after the signal is received by receiver 118. Para. [0037] teaches “each of the Doppler signals 321-326 of the MGD signal 320 selected by the gate selection module 140 and processed by the parameter application module 150” Para. [0029] “For example, the ultrasound operator may select, via the user input module 130, a higher pulse repetition frequency for gates corresponding to blood flow anatomical structures and a lower pulse repetition frequency for gates corresponding to muscle tissue anatomical structures.” (i.e. dependence on identified features.)
Claims 3, 4, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokulin (US 20200178935 A1) and Robert (US 20130094328 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 25 above, and further in view of Raum (US 20200129140 A1).
With respect to claims 3 and 26, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 1, in which the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to retain a plurality of subsets of signals received at respective times after the penetration echo.
Raum teaches,
in which the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to retain a plurality of subsets of signals received at respective times after the penetration echo. (Para. [0092] teaches “extracting a gated signal 100 from various depths z relative to the bone surface (i.e., z=0), e.g., using a sliding Hanning gate (FIG. 10).” (i.e. Fig. 10 shows a plurality of subsets of retained signals 100. Each at a different time.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to retain a plurality of subsets of signals received at respective times after the penetration echo such as that of Raum. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because subsets of signals would allow for 3D measurements as seen in Para. [0131] of Raum.
With respect to claim 4, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 3, in which the respective times at which the plurality of subsets are received are discontinuous.
Raum teaches,
A scanning system according to claim 3, in which the respective times at which the plurality of subsets are received are discontinuous. (Fig. 10 shows a plurality of subsets of retained signals 100. Each at a different time and therefore they are discontinuous.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the respective times at which the plurality of subsets are received are discontinuous such as that of Sokulin. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because as seen in Para. [0092] of Raum it would allow the signal to be extracted at various depths.
Claims 7-9, 12, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokulin (US 20200178935 A1) and Robert (US 20130094328 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 15 above, and further in view of Elze (US 20100107768 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 28, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 1, in which the analysis module is configured to identify a back wall echo in the received ultrasound signals and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to selectively retain signals based on the timing of the back wall echo.
Elze teaches,
in which the analysis module is configured to identify a back wall echo in the received ultrasound signals and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to selectively retain signals based on the timing of the back wall echo. (Para. [0077] teaches “achieved or displayed in each case for each ultrasound echo and obtained in the intermediate echo gates 81 and 83 framed in each case by broken lines and in the back-wall echo gates 82, 84” (i.e. backwall echo gates would be based on timing of backwall echo))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the analysis module is configured to identify a back wall echo in the received ultrasound signals and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to selectively retain signals based on the timing of the back wall echo such as that of Elze. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because according to Para. [0056] of Elze “This also advantageously prevents disruptive signals on account of the grazing incidence on the hole surface. In this way, delamination can be detected more reliably and the position thereof determined more accurately.”
With respect to claim 8, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 7, in which the analysis module is configured to identify a material discontinuity feature in the received ultrasound signals between the penetration echo and the back wall echo, and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals in dependence on the identified material discontinuity feature.
Elze teaches,
in which the analysis module is configured to identify a material discontinuity feature in the received ultrasound signals between the penetration echo and the back wall echo, (Para. [0013] teaches “wherein a surface echo, an intermediate echo, a back-wall edge echo or any combination of these echoes of the ultrasound field emitted by the probe is evaluable by means of the evaluation unit to indicate the presence of the flaw.”)
and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals in dependence on the identified material discontinuity feature. (Para. [0078] teaches “In the region of the back-wall echo gate 84, echo screen heights of between 10% and 40% are produced and SH values of from 40% to 70% are achieved in each of the spatially delimited zones 85 (oval) and 86 (slightly elliptical). Two further locally delimited zones 87, 88 are located above the intermediate echo gate 83. In the elongate oval zone 87 on the left-hand side, the SH values are between 40% and 70%, whereas the slightly elliptical zone 88 on the right-hand side exhibits SH values of between 70% and 100%. However, in the regions of the component 77 surrounding the two zones 87 and 88 (above the intermediate wall echo gate 84) the SH values are considerably lower and only reach values of between 10% and 40% so it is possible to detect the delamination 79 clearly.” (i.e. delamination is viewed as discontinuity as delamination is separation in layers.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the analysis module is configured to identify a material discontinuity feature in the received ultrasound signals between the penetration echo and the back wall echo, and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals in dependence on the identified material discontinuity feature such as that of Elze. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because as seen on Para. [0056] “In this way, delamination can be detected more reliably and the position thereof determined more accurately.”
With respect to claim 9, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 8, in which the analysis module is configured to identify a penetration echo in the received ultrasound signals and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to retain a plurality of subsets of signals received at respective times after the penetration echo, wherein the respective times of the plurality of subsets of signals are determined from one or more of the timings of the penetration echo, the back wall echo and the material discontinuity feature.
Elze teaches,
in which the respective times of the plurality of subsets of signals are determined from one or more of the timings of the penetration echo, the back wall echo and the material discontinuity feature. (Para. [0016-0017] teaches “the measured signals are shown graphically against the travel time or component depth. This makes it possible to display the intermediate echo amplitudes, back-wall edge echo amplitudes and/or intermediate echo travel times (i.e. intermediate echo depths) measured by the probe as what are known as "B-scope displays" or "C-scope displays" on a monitor.” (i.e. back wall echo.) Para. [0038] teaches “The individual vibrator elements in the linear probe are generally activated in groups, each adjacent group typically being activated successively in a time-shifted manner.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the analysis module is configured to identify a penetration echo in the received ultrasound signals and the gating module is configured to gate the received ultrasound signals to retain a plurality of subsets of signals received at respective times after the penetration echo, wherein the respective times of the plurality of subsets of signals are determined from one or more of the timings of the penetration echo, the back wall echo and the material discontinuity feature such as that of Elze. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because as seen in Para. [0017] of Elze it would make it possible to display the all the subsets of the signal and to get information from different depths.
With respect to claim 12,
Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 8, in which the analysis module is configured to identify the material discontinuity feature by identifying a peak in the received ultrasound signals between the penetration echo and the back wall echo and/or having an amplitude within a given amplitude range.
Elze teaches,
in which the analysis module is configured to identify the material discontinuity feature by identifying a peak in the received ultrasound signals between the penetration echo and the back wall echo and/or having an amplitude within a given amplitude range. (Para. [0078] teaches “In the region of the back-wall echo gate 84, echo screen heights of between 10% and 40% are produced and SH values of from 40% to 70% are achieved in each of the spatially delimited zones 85 (oval) and 86 (slightly elliptical).” (i.e. as seen in para. [0077] screen heights are amplitudes.))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the analysis module is configured to identify the material discontinuity feature by identifying a peak in the received ultrasound signals between the penetration echo and the back wall echo and/or having an amplitude within a given amplitude range such as that of Elze. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because as seen in Para. [0077] of Elze “an evaluation unit for a user to enable flaws, in particular delamination, to be detected more easily.”
Claims 10, 11, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokulin (US 20200178935 A1) and Robert (US 20130094328 A1) as applied to claims 2 and 25 above, and further in view of Skoglund (US 20150078129 A1).
With respect to claims 10 and 27, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 2, in which the analysis module is configured to identify the penetration echo by identifying a first peak in the received ultrasound signals with an amplitude that exceeds a penetration echo threshold amplitude.
Skoglund teaches,
in which the analysis module is configured to identify the penetration echo by identifying a first peak in the received ultrasound signals with an amplitude that exceeds a penetration echo threshold amplitude. (Para. [0005] teaches “The signal processor is preferably capable of recognising multiple peaks in each received signal. It may determine that a reflection has been received every time that the output of the match filter exceeds a predetermined threshold. It may identify a maximum amplitude for each acknowledged reflection;”) (i.e. the match filter is dependent on amplitude as seen in para. [0012])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the analysis module is configured to identify the penetration echo by identifying a first peak in the received ultrasound signals with an amplitude that exceeds a penetration echo threshold amplitude such as that of Skoglund. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because identifying the penetration echo in the above way allows the device to be capable of performing well in a wide range of different applications as seen in Para. [0004] of Skoglund.
With respect to claim 11, Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
A scanning system according to claim 10, in which the analysis module is configured to identify the penetration echo by identifying that the first peak has an amplitude less than a predetermined amplitude.
Skoglund teaches,
in which the analysis module is configured to identify the penetration echo by identifying that the first peak has an amplitude less than a predetermined amplitude. (Para. [0012] “a pulse template that generates a response signal having an FFT that has an occupied frequency bin with an amplitude that is above a certain value but which is lower than the amplitude of any occupied frequency bin above the certain value in the FFTs of the response signals generated by any of the other pre-defined pulse templates.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in which the analysis module is configured to identify the penetration echo by identifying that the first peak has an amplitude less than a predetermined amplitude such as that of Skoglund. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because identifying the penetration echo in the above way allows the device to be capable of performing well in a wide range of different applications as seen in Para. [0004] of Skoglund.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sokulin (US 20200178935 A1) and Robert (US 20130094328 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arima (US 5623100 A).
With respect to claim 14, Sokulin further teaches,
A scanning system according to claim 1, in which the array is a two-dimensional array of transducer elements, (Fig. 1 shows arrays 106 and 108 are two-dimensional.)
Sokulin does not explicitly teach,
and in which the gating function has different profiles in different directions along the array.
Arima teaches,
and in which the gating function has different profiles in different directions along the array. (Col. 13 ln(s). 44-54 teach “When performing the slant scanning in the Y-direction, the gate time to be set is determined in the following manner, in that after obtaining respective Z-coordinate measurement positions (probe heights) which are determined in response to the scanning distance in the Y-direction and in accordance with the slant function, the focusing position of the probe 3 in the sample 17 in the depth direction is indexed based on the obtained measurement position, and then the time for the gate setting is computed with reference to the surface echo S with regard to the concerned focusing position.” (i.e. gating is dependent upon the measurement position and that is viewed as different profiles.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert and in which the gating function has different profiles in different directions along the array such as that of Arima.
One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert, because according to Column 9 Ln(s) [35-40] of Arima “When the wave velocity is determined an accurate refractive index therein can be calculated, therefore the focal position in the interior of the sample 17 is correctly predicted. Thus, when the focal position can be correctly predicted a reliable measurement can be performed even with a narrow gate width without missing the focal position.” Therefore, one would be motivated to modify the combination of Sokulin and Robert in order to create a more reliable measurement.
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 JOSHUA L FORRISTALL whose telephone number is 703-756-4554. The examiner
can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30 AM- 5 PM.
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, Andrew Schechter can be reached on 571-272-2302. 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.
/JOSHUA L FORRISTALL/Examiner, Art Unit 2857
/ANDREW SCHECHTER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2857
Prosecution Insights