DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in Applicant’s Responses filed 05/19/2025 with respect to claims 1-3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyachi, Y., US 20150080729 A1 in view of Lewis, et al., US 20140350397 A1 and Prus, et al., US 20220043143 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Miyachi teaches a thickness measurement device for measuring a thickness of a measurement target by using an ultrasonic wave(abstract describes an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and method of producing an ultrasound image capable of accurately determining the boundary of an intima-media complex in an ultrasound image and measuring an intima-media thickness with high precision), the thickness measurement device configured to be attached to an object including the measurement target therein ([0080] states that “The ultrasound probe 1 is, for example, a convex type, linear scan type, or sector scan type probe, which is used by causing it to come into contact with the body surface of the subject”), the thickness measurement device comprising:
a plurality of ultrasonic elements each configured to transmit the ultrasonic wave to the measurement target from a surface of the object ([0080] further states that “The ultrasound probe 1 includes a plurality of ultrasound transducers arranged in a one-dimensional or two-dimensional manner”);
receive a reflected wave reflected by the measurement target; and output a reception signal of each of the plurality of ultrasonic elements ([0080] also states that “Each of these ultrasound transducers transmits an ultrasonic wave toward the blood vessel in the subject based on an actuation signal to be applied and receives an ultrasonic echo reflected by the blood vessel in the subject to output reception signal”)
a controller (controller 10 of [0083]) configured to control the plurality of ultrasonic elements ([0083] states that “the delay amount of each of the actuation signals is adjusted based on a transmission delay pattern selected according to a control signal from the controller 10 so that the ultrasonic waves transmitted from a plurality of ultrasound transducers form an ultrasonic beam”),
the controller is further configured to: compare a signal intensity of the reception signal of each of the plurality of ultrasonic elements with a predetermined threshold ([0124]-[0123] disclose a logarithmic intensity, of an ultrasonic beam from among a plurality of sound rays L1 to L10, of corresponding transducers arranged in a scan direction ([0114]), being greater than a threshold. That is, the intensity is compared with the threshold and determined to be greater than the threshold); and
in a case where the signal intensity of the reception signal of each of a first ultrasonic element and a second ultrasonic element of the plurality of ultrasonic elements is larger than the predetermined threshold ([0124]-[0125] describe a thresholding step for two reception signals),
select one of the first ultrasonic element or the second ultrasonic element based on a ratio of peak values (a point, with maximum intensity, and corresponding to one of a plurality of sound rays L1 to L10 that are arranged in the scan direction, is determined ([0123]), with maximum intensity, determined based on intensity distribution of the sound rays ([0091]-[0092], [0123]), and each of the sound rays corresponding to a respective transducer ([0113]-[0114]). Meaning the selected point with maximum intensity which is compared with the threshold corresponds to a respective transducer);
measure the thickness of the measurement target based on the reception signal of the selected element ([0162]-[0163] state that “The IMT calculator 9 calculates the intima-media thickness (IMT) of the vascular wall from the difference between the position of the determined lumen-intima boundary and the position of the media-adventitia boundary”), and
wherein the first ultrasonic element outputs a first reception signal having a first peak value q11 and a second peak value q12, the second ultrasonic element outputs a second reception signal having a first peak value q21 and a second peak value q22 ([0123] states that “a maximum point giving the maximum value of the logarithmic intensity is detected by the candidate vascular wall boundary point determiner 7 on each of the sound rays L1 to L10 within the vascular wall search depth range” and in [0124]-[0126] compares two other a maximum points to the point determined in [0123]. As shown in figs. 8-10, each signal comprises multiple maxima),
the first peak value q11 and the first peak value q21 correspond to a first boundary of the measurement target and the second peak value q12 and the second peak value q22 correspond to a second boundary of the measurement target ([0127] states “The candidate vascular wall boundary point determiner 7 outputs information regarding the first point of interest and the second point of interest calculated in the above-described manner to the boundary determiner 8 as candidate vascular wall boundary points”).
Miyachi fails to teach wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements is further configured to transmit ultrasonic waves in directions different from one another.
Lewis teaches uterine probe having one or more transducer for detecting a uterine parameter. The one or more parameter can be a fetal heart rate (see abstract), wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements is further configured to transmit ultrasonic waves in directions different from one another (see fig. 6 below and [0055]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to Miyachi wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements is further configured to transmit ultrasonic waves in directions different from one another, as such modification would increase the monitoring volume of the target region (paragraph 62).
PNG
media_image1.png
238
512
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Miyachi in view of Lewis fails to teach in a case the first reception signal and the second reception signal satisfy q11>q21 and q22 >q12, the controller compares q21/q11 with q12/g22 and selects the first ultrasonic element as the selected ultrasonic element when q21/q11 < q12/q22 is satisfied and the second ultrasonic element as the selected ultrasonic element when q21/q11>q12/q22 is satisfied.
However, within the same field of endeavor, Prus teaches approaches for focusing an ultrasound transducer include introducing at least one transient acoustic reflector located in proximity to at least one target region; generating multiple sonications to the at least one target region; measuring a reflection signal of each of the sonications off the at least one transient acoustic reflector; selecting the measured reflection signals, and based at least in part on the selected reflection signals, adjusting a parameter value associated with at least one of the transducer elements so as to improve an ultrasound focus at the target region (see abstract), with [0063] stating that “the controller 108 then compares the amplitude ratios to a predetermined threshold (e.g., 2) (step 306) and selects reflection signals based on the comparison (step 308)” and [0083] discloses using amplitude ratios of the reflection signals to determining selection of transducers responsible for the reflections signals and hence teaching in a case the first reception signal and the second reception signal satisfy q11>q21 and q22 >q12, the controller compares q21/q11 with q12/g22 and selects the first ultrasonic element as the selected ultrasonic element when q21/q11 < q12/q22 is satisfied and the second ultrasonic element as the selected ultrasonic element when q21/q11>q12/q22 is satisfied.
Furthermore, while determining the first or second ultrasonic element based on the ratio of the amplitude would be applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Miyachi, as modified by Lewis, such that in a case the first reception signal and the second reception signal satisfy q11>q21 and q22 >q12, the controller compares q21/q11 with q12/g22 and selects the first ultrasonic element as the selected ultrasonic element when q21/q11 < q12/q22 is satisfied and the second ultrasonic element as the selected ultrasonic element when q21/q11>q12/q22 is satisfied, as taught by Prus, for an accurate and reliable reconstruction of high quality ultrasound focus images ([0008]-[0009]).
Regarding claim 2, Miyachi in view of Lewis and Prus teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Miyachi fails to teach wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements transmit the ultrasonic waves in directions away from one another.
However, Lewis teaches uterine probe having one or more transducer for detecting a uterine parameter. The one or more parameter can be a fetal heart rate (see abstract), wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements is further configured to transmit the ultrasonic waves in directions away from one another (see figs. 6, 24 and 27 and [0183]-[0184]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Miyachi wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements transmit the ultrasonic waves in directions away from one another, as taught by Lewis, as such arrangement would provide good acoustic coupling (paragraph 185) also allow a larger detection range over a wider area (paragraph 186).
Regarding claim 3, Miyachi in view of Lewis and Prus teaches all the limitations of claim 1.
Miyachi fails to teach wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements includes a first plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along a first axis and a second plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis, with an axis orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis as a third axis, the first plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along the first axis is further configured to transmit the ultrasonic waves in the directions away from one another in a first plane including the first axis and the third axis, and the second plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along the second axis is further configured to transmit the ultrasonic waves in the directions away from one another in a second plane including the second axis and the third axis.
However, Lewis further teaches wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements include a plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along a first axis and a plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis, with an axis orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis as a third axis, the plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along the first axis transmit the ultrasonic waves in the directions away from one another in a first plane including the first axis and the third axis, and the plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along the second axis transmit the ultrasonic waves in the directions away from one another in a second plane including the second axis and the third axis.
(As shown in reproduced figs. 24 (plan view) and 27 (cross sectional view), the transducer 20 are arranged such, as indicated in paragraph 183, “The orientation aiding features of FIG. 27 can be applied to any of the configurations as shown in Fig. C through E of FIG. 24 so that each transducer 20 of the configuration is oriented by lens 130 to the end that a line extending perpendicularly through an active (front face) surface of the transducer is non-parallel to a line extending perpendicularly through an active surface of each other transducer. In such manner first, second and third transducers disposed over a two dimensional area from a top view perspective have different orientations as determined by lens 130. Lines extending perpendicularly through a surface of transducers 20 can be non-parallel”; further see Figure 6).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
370
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
652
453
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to configure Miyachi wherein the plurality of ultrasonic elements include a plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along a first axis and a plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along a second axis orthogonal to the first axis, with an axis orthogonal to the first axis and the second axis as a third axis, the plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along the first axis transmit the ultrasonic waves in the directions away from one another in a first plane including the first axis and the third axis, and the plurality of ultrasonic elements disposed along the second axis transmit the ultrasonic waves in the directions away from one another in a second plane including the second axis and the third axis, as taught by Lewis, as such arrangement would provide good acoustic coupling (paragraph 187) also allow a larger detection range over a wider area (paragraph 189).
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 Farouk A Bruce whose telephone number is (408)918-7603. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5pm PST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (571) 272-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/FAROUK A BRUCE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797