DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a front-end configured to generate a synthesized aperture...” in claim 78, and all dependent claims thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 65-77 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.
Regarding claim 65, the claim limitation “acousto-optic imaging” in the preamble is indefinite because the body of the claims does not recite any limitation directed to acousto-optic imaging. Both the first and signal are acoustic echo signals, and both first and second acoustic echo signals are caused by transmitting acoustic signals transmitted by a transmitter. Therefore, the claim 65 is indefinite because it is unclear how claim limitation “acousto-optic imaging” is related to the body of the claim.
Claims 66-77 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 65.
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 65-69, 71-82 and 84-89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes et al. (US 2019/0083059; hereinafter Byrnes), in view of NAGATA et al. (US 2012/0157837; hereinafter Nagata).
Regarding claim 65, Byrnes discloses a massively multi-frequency ultrasound encoded tomography. Byrnes shows a method of acousto-optic imaging (see fig. 1-3; par. [0008], [0010], [0037]) comprising: receiving a first signal from a first receive sub-aperture of a sensor array, wherein the first receive sub-aperture comprises one or more array elements of a first type (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033]); receiving a second signal from a second receive sub-aperture of the sensor array (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0033]), wherein the second receive sub-aperture comprises one or more array elements of a second type different from the first type (see figs. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033], [0049]), wherein the second type is an optical sensor (see fig. 1-4, 8 and par. [0033], [0049]); and synthesizing a combined signal using first and second signal (see par. [0010], [0016], [0017], [0036], [0039]), and the combined signal being from a synthesized aperture formed by the first receive sub-aperture and the second receive sub-aperture of the sensor array (see par. [0010], [0016], [0017], [0036], [0039]). Furthermore, Byrnes teaches the first receiver sub-aperture receiving a first set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signal transmitted by a transmitter and generating a first signal based on the first set of acoustic echo signal (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0032]).
But, Byrnes fails to explicitly state a receiver beam former receiving the first and second signals; the optical sensor which is the second type configured to receiving a second set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signals transmitted by transmitter and generating a second signal based on the second set of acoustic echo signals.
Nagata discloses an ultrasound probe and ultrasound examination device using the same. Nagata also shows two different receiving sub-aperture to detect first and second signal (see fig. 1A and 1B; 5A, 7 and 8), and further show receiver beam former receiving the first and second signals (see par. [0008], [0078], [0103], [0177); the optical sensor which is the second type configured to receiving second set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signals transmitted by transmitter and generating a second signal based on the second set of acoustic echo signals (see fig. 1; par. [0082], [0273]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a receiver beam former receiving the first and second signals; the optical sensor which is the second type configured to receiving a second set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signals transmitted by transmitter and generating a second signal based on the second set of acoustic echo signals in the invention of Byrnes, as taught by Nagata, to improve signal-to noise ratio of receives signals and storing the received signals temporalty in digital memory for later phasing addition using the beam former and using the optical sensor to detect ultrasound echo would benefit by no longer needing for microfabrication of the piezoelectric elements and electrical connections, and possibility of improve the S/N ratio and improve the resolution in the beam forming.
Regarding claim 66, Byrnes shows phase matching the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 67, Byrnes shows wherein phase matching the first signal and the second signal comprises applying a first delay to the first signal or a second delay to the second signal (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]), the first delay and the second delay being determined based at least in part on a difference between a first propagation time from the one or more array elements of a first type to a medium being imaged and a second propagation time from the one or more array elements of a second type to the medium (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 68, Byrnes shows wherein the first delay or the second delay is determined based at least in part on a transmit and/or receive foci (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 69, Byrnes shows filtering the first signal to reduce noise in the first signal and filtering the second signal to reduce noise in the second signal (see par. [0046], [0069]).
Regarding claim 71, Byrnes shows wherein the first signal is a combination of signals originating from a plurality of array elements of the first type or the second signal is a combination of signals originating from a plurality of array elements of the second type (see figs. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033], [0049]).
Regarding claim 72, Byrnes shows one or more of the following, before phase matching the first signal and the second signal: generating the first signal by combining signals originating from a plurality of array elements of the first type (see figs. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033], [0049]); and generating the second signal by combining signals originating from a plurality of array elements of the second type (see figs. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033], [0049]).
Regarding claim 73, Byrnes shows further comprising forming a larger effective array element from a plurality of array elements of the first type (see figs. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033], [0049]).
Regarding claim 74, Byrnes reducing the effective dimensionality of the synthesized aperture (see figs. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033], [0049]).
Regarding claim 75, Byrnes shows frequency matching the first signal and the second signal; and/or amplitude matching the first signal and the second signal; and/or phase matching the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 76, Byrnes shows wherein the combination of the first signal and the second signal is a coherent combination (see fig. 1-4, 8 and par. [0010], [0016], [0017], [0036], [0039]).
Regarding claim 77, Byrnes shows selecting the first sub-aperture for transmitting acoustic signals (see fig. 1-4 and 8); and selecting the first sub-aperture or the second sub-aperture for receiving acoustic echoes in response to the acoustic signals (see fig. 1-4 and 8).
Regarding claim 78, Byrnes discloses a massively multi-frequency ultrasound encoded tomography. Byrnes shows an apparatus for imaging a target (see abstract; figs. 1-4), comprising: one or more array elements of a first type forming a first receive sub-aperture (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0032], [0033]); one or more array elements of a second type different from the first type and forming a second receive sub-aperture (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0033]), the second type being an optical sensor (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0033]), wherein the first sub-aperture receives a first signal having a first phase (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0032]) and the second sub-aperture receives a second signal having a second phase (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0033]); and a front-end configured to generate a synthesized aperture at least in part by combining the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0010], [0016], [0017], [0036], [0039]). Furthermore, Byrnes shows that the first set of acoustic echo signals is in response to acoustic signals transmitted by a transmitter and generates the first signal (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0032]).
But, Byrnes fails to explicitly state a receiver beam former receiving the first and second signals; the optical sensor which is the second type configured to receiving a second set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signals transmitted by transmitter and generating a second signal based on the second set of acoustic echo signals.
Nagata discloses an ultrasound probe and ultrasound examination device using the same. Nagata also shows two different receiving sub-aperture to detect first and second signal (see fig. 1A and 1B; 5A, 7 and 8), and further show receiver beam former receiving the first and second signals (see par. [0008], [0078], [0103], [0177); the optical sensor which is the second type configured to receiving second set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signals transmitted by transmitter and generating a second signal based on the second set of acoustic echo signals (see fig. 1; par. [0082], [0273]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a receiver beam former receiving the first and second signals; the optical sensor which is the second type configured to receiving a second set of acoustic echo signals in response to acoustic signals transmitted by transmitter and generating a second signal based on the second set of acoustic echo signals in the invention of Byrnes, as taught by Nagata, to improve signal-to noise ratio of receives signals and storing the received signals temporalty in digital memory for later phasing addition using the beam former and using the optical sensor to detect ultrasound echo would benefit by no longer needing for microfabrication of the piezoelectric elements and electrical connections, and possibility of improve the S/N ratio and improve the resolution in the beam forming.
Regarding claim 79, Byrnes shows wherein the front-end is further configured to generate the synthesized aperture by phase matching the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 80, Byrnes shows wherein phase matching the first signal and the second signal comprises applying a first delay to the first signal or a second delay to the second signal (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]), the first delay and the second delay being determined based at least in part on a difference between a first propagation time from the one or more array elements of a first type to a medium being imaged and a second propagation time from the one or more array elements of a second type to the medium (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 81, Byrnes shows wherein the first delay or the second delay is determined based at least in part on a transmit and/or receive foci (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 82, Byrnes shows wherein the front-end is further configured to generate the synthesized aperture by filtering the first signal to reduce noise in the first signal and filtering the second signal to reduce noise in the second signal (see par. [0046], [0069]).
Regarding claim 84, Byrnes shows wherein the front-end is further configured to generate the synthesized aperture by frequency matching the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0011]).
Regarding claim 85, Byrnes shows wherein the first signal is a combination of signals originating from a plurality of array elements of the first type (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0032]) or the second signal is a combination of signals originating from a plurality of array elements of the second type (see fig. 1-4, 8; par. [0033]).
Regarding claim 86, Byrnes shows wherein the front-end is further configured to generate the synthesized aperture by: frequency matching the first signal and the second signal; and/or amplitude matching the first signal and the second signal; and/or phase matching the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0030], [0035], 0036], [0038]).
Regarding claim 87, Byrnes shows wherein the combination of the first signal and the second signal is a coherent combination (see fig. 1-4, 8 and par. [0010], [0016], [0017], [0036], [0039]).
Regarding claim 88, Byrnes shows wherein the front-end is further configured to combine the first signal and the second signal by: selecting the first sub-aperture for transmitting acoustic signals; and selecting the first sub-aperture or the second sub-aperture for receiving acoustic echoes in response to the acoustic signals.
Regarding claim 89, Byrnes shows wherein the front-end is further configured to combine the first signal and the second signal by: selecting an element from the one or more array elements of the first type for transmitting acoustic signals (see fig. 1-4 and 8); and selecting the first aperture or the second sub-aperture for receiving acoustic echoes in response to the acoustic signals (see fig. 1-4 and 8).
Claims 70 and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Byrnes et al. (US 2019/0083059; hereinafter Byrnes), in view of NAGATA et al. (US 2012/0157837; hereinafter Nagata) as applied to claims 65 and 78 above, and further in view of Hossack et al. (US 5,957,852).
Regarding claims 70 and 83, Byrnes and Nagata disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Byrnes shows amplitude match the first signal and the second signal (see par. [0035], [0036], [0038], [0040]), but fails to explicitly state amplifying the first signal or the second signal by an amplification gain.
Hossack discloses an ultrasonic harmonic imaging. Hossack teaches amplifying a first signal by a gain amplifier (see 54 and 56 in fig. 9). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of amplifying a first signal by a gain amplifier in the invention of Byrnes and Nagata, as taught by Hossack, to be able to compensate for weak signal which may caused by attenuation.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to claims 72-74 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Nagata.
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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 M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights