FYI, 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 .
Status of Claims
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
Claims 1, 15, and 16 have been amended. Claims 1, 5-9, and 13-18 are currently pending in this application.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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) are: “a detector that detects,” “an analyzer that performs frequency analysis,” “a generator that generates” recited in claim 1.
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
With respect to, a detector that detects the reception signal and generates a Doppler signal, this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a signal processor that includes an orthogonal detector that functions as described in [0066] of applicant’s application. “The orthogonal detector 3b mixes a reference signal having the same phase as the transmitted ultrasonic pulse and a reference signal having a phase different from that of the transmitted ultrasonic pulse by n/2 with respect to the reception signal output from the band-pass filter 3a, generates an orthogonal detection signal.” ([0066]). The orthogonal detector may be applied by the Doppler signal processor 3. ([0064] and Figures 4 and 8 of pending application). The Doppler signal processor 3 may be realized by “a digital arithmetic circuit including a digital signal processor (DSP) or the like,” ([0040] of pending application), but may also be realized by “a hardware circuit or may be realized by arithmetic processing according to a program.” (Id).
With respect to, an analyzer that performs frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal, this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as an FFT analyzer that generates a Doppler spectrum by performing frequency analysis on the Doppler shift frequency component of the reception signal. ([0057]). The FFT analyzer may be applied by the Doppler signal processor 3 ([0046] and Figures 4 and 8 of pending application). The Doppler signal processor 3 may be realized by “a digital arithmetic circuit including a digital signal processor (DSP) or the like” ([0040]) but may also be realized by “a hardware circuit or may be realized by arithmetic processing according to a program.” Id.
With respect to, a generator that generates a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal, this element is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) as a “Doppler sound signal generator 3h.” ([0058]). The Doppler sound signal generator 3h is a part of the Doppler signal processor 3. ([0046] and Figures 4 and 8). The Doppler signal processor can be realized by “a digital arithmetic circuit including a digital signal processor (DSP) or the like” but may also be realized by “a hardware circuit or may be realized by arithmetic processing according to a program.” ([0040]).
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 § 103
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.
Claims 1, 9, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the translation of JP 2002325767 A (hereinafter “TOSHIBA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 7 August 2025) and over the translation of JP 4359093 B2 (hereinafter “NISHIMURA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 6 January 2025) and a translation of JPS6198244A (cited in IDS filed on 11/13/2025) (hereinafter GE JAPAN).
With respect to claim 1, TOSHIBA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. (see, e.g., [0001]) that includes a transceiver that transmits and receives an ultrasonic wave to obtain a reception signal related to an ultrasonic echo (see, e.g., [0019]: “transmitter/receiver 21”) and a detector that detects the reception signal and generates a Doppler signal (see, e.g., [0019]: “quadrature phase detector 23”). “[T]he quadrature phase detector 23 includes a digital mixer and a low-pass filter for each two channels corresponding to the real part component and the imaginary part component, respectively, and quadrature phase detects the echo signal.” ([0026]).
TOSHIBA also teaches a filtering part that performs filter processing of cutting or suppressing a low-frequency component included in the Doppler signal and generates a first filtered Doppler signal and a second filtered Doppler signal from the Doppler signal. Figure 1 and CFM processing block 24 and Doppler processing block 25 [i.e., collectively a “filtering part”] that each include a wall filter for producing a first filtered signal and a second filtered signal, respectively (discussed further below)). TOSHIBA also teaches an analyzer that performs frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal. TOSHIBA teaches that CFM processing block 24 includes the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44, is “functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022] and Figure 1). The autocorrelator 43 and the CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis. (see, e.g., Baba, Tatsuro. “Investigation of Frequency Analysis Methods for Doppler Ultrasound Systems.” Applied Physics Research 5.2 (2013) describing that “From its birth till today, a complex autocorrelation (AC) method has been used for CFM because of its simplicity….Because the calculation load of the frequency analysis is very small, the AC method has been used.” (emphasis added) (Abstract, see also Conclusion)).
TOSHIBA also describes a generator that generates a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal. The “Doppler sound processing block 29” shown in Figure 1 outputs to the power amplifier 30 and speaker 31. TOSHIBA teaches that “the Doppler sound processing block 29 [is] functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]). TOSHIBA also teaches a monitor that display a display image generated on the basis of the image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 the “monitor 28”; see also [0032] and [0035]) and a speaker that outputs Doppler sound generated on the basis of the sound
PNG
media_image1.png
200
376
media_image1.png
Greyscale
signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 and “speaker 31”; see also [0020]).
TOSHIBA also teaches that the filtering part applies a first filter to the Doppler signal to generate the first filtered Doppler signal. “The CFM processing block 24 is provided with a CT buffer 41, a wall filter 42, an autocorrelator 43, and a CFM calculator 44 in order from the signal input side.” (emphasis added) ([0027]). “The wall filter 42 is a high-pass filter that removes a clutter component due to a low frequency wall of the Doppler signal. The wall filter 42 removes the clutter component from the Doppler signal.” ([0029]). TOSHIBA also teaches that the filtering part applies a second filter to the Doppler signal to generate the second filtered Doppler signal, wherein the first and second filters are in parallel. “[T]he spectrum Doppler processing block 25 includes a wall filter 51, a CINE buffer 52, an FFT 53, and a post calculator 54 in order from the input side thereof…” (emphasis added) ([0033]). “[T]he digital Doppler signal (IQ signal) described above is also sent to the wall filter 51, and the clutter component such as the heart wall is removed.” (emphasis added) ([0034]). NOTE: The wall filters 42 and 51 are in parallel. TOSHIBA also teaches that the first filter and the second filter include high-pass filters (see, e.g., [0029] describing that the wall filter 41 is a high-pass filter that removes “a clutter component” and [0033] describing that the wall filter 51 removes “the clutter component” as well.).
PNG
media_image2.png
200
400
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, TOSHIBA does not teach that the second filter has a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the first filter.
In the same field of endeavor, NISHIMURA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus having a technique for removing a wall component of a Doppler signal. ([0001]). NISHIMURA’s system seeks to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). In the NISHIMURA system, after applying a common high-pass filter to the Doppler signal, an additional high-pass filter is selected for the audio signal but not the video signal. Different high-pass filters can be applied to the audio signal, including one that is higher than the video signal. ([0053] and [0055]). Accordingly, NISHIMURA teaches that one can improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal” by modifying the characteristics (e.g., cutoff frequency) of the filter for the audio signal such that the filter characteristics differ from the filter characteristics of the video signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the second filter of the TOSHIBA system to have different filter characteristics (specifically the cutoff frequency) than the cutoff frequency of the first filter. TOSHIBA already teaches separate filters for the audio and video signals. One would have been motivated to select a filter having a higher cutoff frequency for the audio signal, as taught in NISHIMURA, to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in NISHIMURA, the second filter can have a cutoff frequency higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter.
However, neither TOSHIBA nor NISHIMURA teach that the second filter has a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the first filter.
Examiner notes that the “gain change in a transition band” (i.e., the width between the stopband and passband) is recognized, by those skilled in the art, as a result-effective variable of a high-pass filter for Doppler ultrasound. (MPEP 2144.05, II.B. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”).
GE JAPAN
PNG
media_image3.png
200
400
media_image3.png
Greyscale
teaches an ultrasonic Doppler system having an optimized Doppler filter. (Title and p.1, lines 1-2). In comparing Figures 9A and 9B of GE JAPAN, the reference teaches that conventional wall filter’s have a steep cutoff/transition, which can increase the risk of losing useful signal components. “FIG. 9 (a) is a diagram showing a conventional filter characteristic. In the figure, the vertical axis indicates gain, and the horizontal axis indicates frequency. As shown in the drawing, the filter characteristic of the conventional Doppler filter has a very steep rise, so that there is a higher risk that an effective signal component is cut off.” (p.1, lines 40-42). GE JAPAN suggests that a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more signal components to be preserved. “Therefore, if the filter characteristic can be made to have a gentle slope as shown in FIG. 9B, there is a possibility that an effective signal component can be picked up.” (Id). GE JAPAN teaches making the Doppler filter smoother by setting the constants of the circuit. “According to the present invention, as shown in FIG. 7, by setting the slope of the filter characteristic to a predetermined value of the circuit constants of the impedances 71 to Z7 of the resonance circuit, a considerably smooth characteristic can be obtained.” (p. 2, lines 38-40). GE JAPAN notes that the operator can listen to the signal and change the filter characteristics. (p.1, lines 32-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system such that the high-pass filter applied to the audio signal has a gain change in a transition band that is gentler than a gain change a conventional filter. As TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA teach a conventional filter for the video signal, a high-pass filter that can be optimized to have a gentler gain change, as taught in GE JAPAN, would necessarily have a gain change that is gentler than the gain change in the filter that is applied to the video signal. (See also Tatsuro, Baba. “Progress of Doppler Ultrasound System Design and Architecture.” Design and Architectures for Digital Signal Processing. IntechOpen, 2013, which teaches that the wall filters for CFM and spectral doppler are each high-order (i.e., steep cutoff). (Compare Section 5.2 to Section 5.3)). It is noted that the gain change of a filter is a known result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider when designing a system that is configured to improve the sound quality of the Doppler signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system to have an optimizable audio filter, as taught in GE JAPAN, because a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more relevant signal components to be preserved. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as both NISHIMURA and GE JAPAN teach that the audio filter can be modified/optimized.
With respect to claim 9, TOSHIBA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. (see, e.g., [0001]) that includes a transceiver that transmits and receives an ultrasonic wave to obtain a reception signal related to an ultrasonic echo (see, e.g., [0019]: “transmitter/receiver 21”) and a detector that detects the reception signal and generates a Doppler signal (see, e.g., [0019]: “quadrature phase detector 23”). “[T]he quadrature phase detector 23 includes a digital mixer and a low-pass filter for each two channels corresponding to the real part component and the imaginary part component, respectively, and quadrature phase detects the echo signal.” ([0026]).
TOSHIBA also teaches a filtering part that performs filter processing of cutting or suppressing a low-frequency component included in the Doppler signal and generates a first filtered Doppler signal and a second filtered Doppler signal from the Doppler signal. Figure 1 and CFM processing block 24 and Doppler processing block 25 [i.e., collectively a “filtering part”] each include a wall filter for producing a first filtered signal and a second filtered signal, respectively (discussed further below)). TOSHIBA also teaches an analyzer that performs frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal. TOSHIBA teaches that “the spectrum Doppler processing block 25,” which includes the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44, is “functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]). The autocorrelator 43 and the CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis. (see, e.g., Baba, Tatsuro. “Investigation of Frequency Analysis Methods for Doppler Ultrasound Systems.” Applied Physics Research 5.2 (2013) describing that “From its birth till today, a complex autocorrelation (AC) method has been used for CFM because of its simplicity….Because the calculation load of the frequency analysis is very small, the AC method has been used.” (emphasis added) (Abstract, see also Conclusion)).
TOSHIBA also teaches a generator that generates a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal. The “Doppler sound processing block 29” shown in Figure 1 outputs to the power amplifier 30 and speaker 31. TOSHIBA teaches that “the Doppler sound processing block 29 [is] functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]). TOSHIBA also teaches a monitor that displays a display image generated on the basis of the image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 the “monitor 28”; see also [0032] and [0035]) and a speaker that outputs Doppler sound generated on the basis of the sound signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 and “speaker 31”; see also [0020]).
TOSHIBA also teaches that the filtering part applies a third filter to the Doppler signal to generate the first filtered Doppler signal. “The CFM processing block 24 is provided with a CT buffer 41, a wall filter 42, an autocorrelator 43, and a CFM calculator 44 in order from the signal input side.” (emphasis added) ([0027]). “The wall filter 42 is a high-pass filter that removes a clutter component due to a low frequency wall of the Doppler signal. The wall filter 42 removes the clutter component from the Doppler signal.” ([0029]). TOSHIBA also teaches that the filtering part applies a fourth filter to the first filtered Doppler signal to generate the second filtered Doppler signal. “[T]he spectrum Doppler processing block 25 includes a wall filter 51, a CINE buffer 52, an FFT 53, and a post calculator 54 in order from the input side thereof…” (emphasis added) ([0033]). “[T]he digital Doppler signal (IQ signal) described above is also sent to the wall filter 51, and the clutter component such as the heart wall is removed.” (emphasis added) ([0034]). TOSHIBA also teaches the first filter and the second filter include high-pass filters (see, e.g., [0029] describing that the wall filter 41 is a high-pass filter that removes “a clutter component” and [0033] describing that the wall filter 51 removes “the clutter component” as well.)
However, TOSHIBA does not teach that a cutoff frequency of the fourth filter is higher than a cutoff frequency of the third filter, and the fourth filter has at least one of a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the third filter, or a gain of a stop band higher than a gain of a stop band of the third filter.
In the same field of endeavor, NISHIMURA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus having a technique for removing a wall component of a Doppler blood flow velocity measuring apparatus applied to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. ([0001]). NISHIMURA’s system seeks to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). In the NISHIMURA system, prior to separating the Doppler signal for the monitor and the speaker, a common high-pass filter is applied. “The high-pass filter 601 [i.e., first filter] is a high-pass filter that removes low-frequency components in the Doppler blood flow signal….” ([0052]). “The high-pass filter 601 is a high-pass filter corresponding to a wall removal filter mounted on a general ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and selects one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency by an operator.” ([0053]).
Afterward, however, an additional high-pass filter is selected for the audio signal. “The wall component remover 603 removes the wall component from the output signal of the high pass filter 601.” ([0053]) (see also Figure 6 showing the output of 601 being provided to 602, 603 for the audio signal and 109 for the video signal). The wall component remover 603 includes a first high-pass filter 701 having a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, a second high-pass filter 702 having a cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, and a third high-pass filter 703. ([0055]). For circumstances in which the high-pass filter 702 (800 Hz) is automatically selected and the operator selects a cutoff frequency for the high pass filter 601 (e.g., one of 50, 100, 200, 400, or 600 Hz), the high-pass filter 702 will have a higher cutoff frequency than the high-pass filter 601.
Accordingly, NISHIMURA teaches that a cutoff frequency of the fourth filter [i.e., for the audio signal] is higher than a cutoff frequency of the third filter [i.e., for the video signal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the TOSHIBA system to include a second filter having a cutoff frequency that is higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter. TOSHIBA already teaches separate filters for the audio and video signals. One would have been motivated to select a filter having a higher cutoff frequency for the audio signal, as taught in NISHIMURA, to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in NISHIMURA, the second filter can have a cutoff frequency higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter.
However, neither TOSHIBA nor NISHIMURA teach that the fourth filter has at least one of a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the third filter or a gain of a stop band higher than a gain of a stop band of the third filter. NISHIMURA does teach that cutoff frequency of the third and fourth filters can be selected either by the user or based on the circumstances. ([0053], [0055]).
Examiner notes that the “gain change in a transition band” (i.e., the width between the stopband and passband) and the “gain of a stop band” (which is directly related to stopband attenuation) are recognized, by those skilled in the art, as result-effective variables of a high-pass filter for Doppler ultrasound. (MPEP 2144.05, II.B. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”).
GE JAPAN teaches an ultrasonic Doppler system having an optimized Doppler filter. (Title and p.1, lines 1-2). In comparing Figures 9A and 9B of GE JAPAN, the reference teaches that conventional wall filters have a steep cutoff/transition, which can increase the risk of losing useful signal components. “FIG. 9 (a) is a diagram showing a conventional filter characteristic. In the figure, the vertical axis indicates gain, and the horizontal axis indicates frequency. As shown in the drawing, the filter characteristic of the conventional Doppler filter has a very steep rise, so that there is a higher risk that an effective signal component is cut off.” (p.1, lines 40-42). GE JAPAN suggests that a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more signal components to be preserved. “Therefore, if the filter characteristic can be made to have a gentle slope as shown in FIG. 9B, there is a possibility that an effective signal component can be picked up.” (Id). GE JAPAN teaches making the Doppler filter smoother by setting the constants of the circuit. “According to the present invention, as shown in FIG. 7, by setting the slope of the filter characteristic to a predetermined value of the circuit constants of the impedances 71 to Z7 of the resonance circuit, a considerably smooth characteristic can be obtained.” (p. 2, lines 38-40). GE JAPAN notes that the operator can listen to the signal and change the filter characteristics. (p.1, lines 32-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system such that the high-pass filter applied to the audio signal has a gain change in a transition band that is gentler than a gain change a conventional filter. As TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA teach a conventional filter for the video signal, a high-pass filter that can be optimized to have a gentler gain change, as taught in GE JAPAN, would necessarily have a gain change that is gentler than the gain change in the filter that is applied to the video signal. (See also Tatsuro, Baba. “Progress of Doppler Ultrasound System Design and Architecture.” Design and Architectures for Digital Signal Processing. IntechOpen, 2013, which teaches that the wall filters for CFM and spectral doppler are each high-order (i.e., steep cutoff). (Compare Section 5.2 to Section 5.3)). It is noted that the gain change of a filter is a known result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider when designing a system that is configured to improve the sound quality of the Doppler signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system to have an optimizable audio filter, as taught in GE JAPAN, because a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more relevant signal components to be preserved. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as both NISHIMURA and GE JAPAN teach that the audio filter can be modified/optimized.
With respect to claim 15 , TOSHIBA teaches a method for controlling an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (see, e.g., [0001]), the method comprising transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave to obtain a reception signal related to an ultrasonic echo (see, e.g., [0019]: “transmitter/receiver 21”); detecting the reception signal to generate a Doppler signal (see, e.g., [0019]: “quadrature phase detector 23”). “[T]he quadrature phase detector 23 includes a digital mixer and a low-pass filter for each two channels corresponding to the real part component and the imaginary part component, respectively, and quadrature phase detects the echo signal.” ([0026]) and performing filter processing of cutting or suppressing a low-frequency component included in the Doppler signal and generating a first filtered Doppler signal and a second filtered Doppler signal from the Doppler signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 and CFM processing block 24 and Doppler processing block 25 [i.e., collectively a “filtering part”]. Each of the processing blocks 24, 25 include a wall filter for producing a first filtered signal and a second filtered signal, respectively (discussed further below)).
TOSHIBA also teaches performing frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1, the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis). NOTE: The autocorrelator 43 and the CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis. As evidence of this, Examiner refers to Baba, Tatsuro. “Investigation of Frequency Analysis Methods for Doppler Ultrasound Systems.” Applied Physics Research 5.2 (2013), which describes that “[f]rom its birth till today, a complex autocorrelation (AC) method has been used for CFM because of its simplicity….Because the calculation load of the frequency analysis is very small, the AC method has been used.” (emphasis added) (Abstract; see also Conclusion)). TOSHIBA teaches that “the spectrum Doppler processing block 25,” which includes the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44, is “functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]).
TOSHIBA also teaches generating a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal. The “Doppler sound processing block 29” shown in Figure 1 outputs to the power amplifier 30 and speaker 31. TOSHIBA teaches that “the Doppler sound processing block 29 [is] functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]).
TOSHIBA also teaches displaying, on a monitor, a display image generated on the basis of the image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 the “monitor 28”; see also [0032] and [0035]) and outputting, by a speaker, Doppler sound generated on the basis of the sound signal, (see, e.g., Figure 1 and “speaker 31”; see also [0020]) wherein in the filter processing, a first filter is applied to the Doppler signal to generate the first filtered Doppler signal “The CFM processing block 24 is provided with a CT buffer 41, a wall filter 42, an autocorrelator 43, and a CFM calculator 44 in order from the signal input side.” (emphasis added) ([0027]). “The wall filter 42 is a high-pass filter that removes a clutter component due to a low frequency wall of the Doppler signal. The wall filter 42 removes the clutter component from the Doppler signal.” ([0029]), and a second filter is applied to the Doppler signal to generate the second filtered Doppler signal, wherein the first and second filters are in parallel. “[T]he spectrum Doppler processing block 25 includes a wall filter 51, a CINE buffer 52, an FFT 53, and a post calculator 54 in order from the input side thereof…” (emphasis added) ([0033]). “[T]he digital Doppler signal (IQ signal) described above is also sent to the wall filter 51, and the clutter component such as the heart wall is removed.” (emphasis added) ([0034]). NOTE: The wall filters 42 and 51 are in parallel.
TOSHIBA also teaches that the first filter and the second filter include high-pass filters (see, e.g., [0029] describing that the wall filter 41 is a high-pass filter that removes “a clutter component” and [0033] describing that the wall filter 51 removes “the clutter component” as well.).
However, TOSHIBA does not teach that the second filter has a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the first filter.
In the same field of endeavor, NISHIMURA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus having a technique for removing a wall component of a Doppler signal. ([0001]). NISHIMURA’s system seeks to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). In the NISHIMURA system, after applying a common high-pass filter to the Doppler signal, an additional high-pass filter is selected for the audio signal but not the video signal. Different high-pass filters can be applied to the audio signal, including one that is higher than the video signal. ([0053] and [0055]). Accordingly, NISHIMURA teaches that one can improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal” by modifying the characteristics (e.g., cutoff frequency) of the filter for the audio signal such that the filter characteristics differ from the filter characteristics of the video signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the second filter of the TOSHIBA system to have different filter characteristics (specifically the cutoff frequency) than the cutoff frequency of the first filter. TOSHIBA already teaches separate filters for the audio and video signals. One would have been motivated to select a filter having a higher cutoff frequency for the audio signal, as taught in NISHIMURA, to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in NISHIMURA, the second filter can have a cutoff frequency higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter.
However, neither TOSHIBA nor NISHIMURA teach that the second filter has a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the first filter.
Examiner notes that the “gain change in a transition band” (i.e., the width between the stopband and passband) is recognized, by those skilled in the art, as a result-effective variable of a high-pass filter for Doppler ultrasound. (MPEP 2144.05, II.B. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”).
GE JAPAN teaches an ultrasonic Doppler system having an optimized Doppler filter. (Title and p.1, lines 1-2). In comparing Figures 9A and 9B of GE JAPAN, the reference teaches that conventional wall filters have a steep cutoff/transition, which can increase the risk of losing useful signal components. “FIG. 9 (a) is a diagram showing a conventional filter characteristic. In the figure, the vertical axis indicates gain, and the horizontal axis indicates frequency. As shown in the drawing, the filter characteristic of the conventional Doppler filter has a very steep rise, so that there is a higher risk that an effective signal component is cut off.” (p.1, lines 40-42). GE JAPAN suggests that a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more signal components to be preserved. “Therefore, if the filter characteristic can be made to have a gentle slope as shown in FIG. 9B, there is a possibility that an effective signal component can be picked up.” (Id). GE JAPAN teaches making the Doppler filter smoother by setting the constants of the circuit. “According to the present invention, as shown in FIG. 7, by setting the slope of the filter characteristic to a predetermined value of the circuit constants of the impedances 71 to Z7 of the resonance circuit, a considerably smooth characteristic can be obtained.” (p. 2, lines 38-40). GE JAPAN notes that the operator can listen to the signal and change the filter characteristics. (p.1, lines 32-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system such that the high-pass filter applied to the audio signal has a gain change in a transition band that is gentler than a gain change a conventional filter. As TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA teach a conventional filter for the video signal, a high-pass filter that can be optimized to have a gentler gain change, as taught in GE JAPAN, would necessarily have a gain change that is gentler than the gain change in the filter that is applied to the video signal. (See also Tatsuro, Baba. “Progress of Doppler Ultrasound System Design and Architecture.” Design and Architectures for Digital Signal Processing. IntechOpen, 2013, which teaches that the wall filters for CFM and spectral doppler are each high-order (i.e., steep cutoff). (Compare Section 5.2 to Section 5.3)). It is noted that the gain change of a filter is a known result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider when designing a system that is configured to improve the sound quality of the Doppler signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system to have an optimizable audio filter, as taught in GE JAPAN, because a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more relevant signal components to be preserved. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as both NISHIMURA and GE JAPAN teach that the audio filter can be modified/optimized.
With respect to claim 17, TOSHIBA teaches a method for controlling an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (see, e.g., [0001]), the method comprising: transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave to obtain a reception signal related to an ultrasonic echo (see, e.g., [0019]: “transmitter/receiver 21”); detecting the reception signal to generate a Doppler signal (see, e.g., [0019]: “quadrature phase detector 23”). “[T]he quadrature phase detector 23 includes a digital mixer and a low-pass filter for each two channels corresponding to the real part component and the imaginary part component, respectively, and quadrature phase detects the echo signal.” ([0026]) and performing filter processing of cutting or suppressing a low-frequency component included in the Doppler signal and generating a first filtered Doppler signal and a second filtered Doppler signal from the Doppler signal. Figure 1 and CFM processing block 24 and Doppler processing block 25 [i.e., collectively a “filtering part”] that each include a wall filter for producing a first filtered signal and a second filtered signal, respectively (discussed further below)) and performing frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal TOSHIBA teaches that “the spectrum Doppler processing block 25,” which includes the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44, is “functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]). The autocorrelator 43 and the CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis. (see, e.g., Baba, Tatsuro. “Investigation of Frequency Analysis Methods for Doppler Ultrasound Systems.” Applied Physics Research 5.2 (2013) describing that “From its birth till today, a complex autocorrelation (AC) method has been used for CFM because of its simplicity….Because the calculation load of the frequency analysis is very small, the AC method has been used.” (emphasis added) (Abstract)) and generating a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal. The “Doppler sound processing block 29” shown in Figure 1 outputs to the power amplifier 30 and speaker 31. TOSHIBA teaches that “the Doppler sound processing block 29 [is] functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]).
TOSHIBA also teaches displaying, on a monitor, a display image generated on the basis of the image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 the “monitor 28”; see also [0032] and [0035]) and outputting, by a speaker, Doppler sound generated on the basis of the sound signal, (see, e.g., Figure 1 and “speaker 31”; see also [0020]) wherein in the filter processing, a third filter is applied to the Doppler signal to generate the first filtered Doppler signal “The CFM processing block 24 is provided with a CT buffer 41, a wall filter 42, an autocorrelator 43, and a CFM calculator 44 in order from the signal input side.” (emphasis added) ([0027]). “The wall filter 42 is a high-pass filter that removes a clutter component due to a low frequency wall of the Doppler signal. The wall filter 42 removes the clutter component from the Doppler signal.” ([0029]), and a fourth filter is applied to the Doppler to generate the second filtered Doppler signal “[T]he spectrum Doppler processing block 25 includes a wall filter 51, a CINE buffer 52, an FFT 53, and a post calculator 54 in order from the input side thereof…” (emphasis added) ([0033]). “[T]he digital Doppler signal (IQ signal) described above is also sent to the wall filter 51, and the clutter component such as the heart wall is removed.” (emphasis added) ([0034]).
TOSHIBA also teaches the third filter and the fourth filter include high-pass filters (see, e.g., [0029] describing that the wall filter 41 is a high-pass filter that removes “a clutter component” and [0033] describing that the wall filter 51 removes “the clutter component” as well.).
However, TOSHIBA does not teach that a cutoff frequency of the fourth filter is higher than a cutoff frequency of the third filter, and the fourth filter has at least one of a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the third filter, or a gain of a stop band higher than a gain of a stop band of the third filter.
In the same field of endeavor, NISHIMURA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus having a technique for removing a wall component of a Doppler blood flow velocity measuring apparatus applied to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. ([0001]). NISHIMURA’s system seeks to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). In the NISHIMURA system, prior to separating the Doppler signal for the monitor and the speaker, a common high-pass filter is applied. “The high-pass filter 601 [i.e., first filter] is a high-pass filter that removes low-frequency components in the Doppler blood flow signal….” ([0052]). “The high-pass filter 601 is a high-pass filter corresponding to a wall removal filter mounted on a general ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and selects one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency by an operator.” ([0053]).
Afterward, however, an additional high-pass filter is selected for the audio signal only. “The wall component remover 603 removes the wall component from the output signal of the high pass filter 601.” ([0053]) (see also Figure 6 showing the output of 601 being provided to 602, 603 for the audio signal and 109 for the video signal). The wall component remover 603 includes a first high-pass filter 701 having a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, a second high-pass filter 702 having a cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, and a third high-pass filter 703. ([0055]). For circumstances in which the high-pass filter 702 (800 Hz) is automatically selected and the operator selects a cutoff frequency for the high pass filter 601 (e.g., one of 50, 100, 200, 400, or 600 Hz), the high-pass filter 702 will have a higher cutoff frequency than the high-pass filter 601.
Accordingly, NISHIMURA teaches that a cutoff frequency of the fourth filter [i.e., for the audio signal] has…a cutoff frequency higher than a cutoff frequency of the third filter [i.e., for the video signal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the second filter of the TOSHIBA system to have a cutoff frequency that is higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter. TOSHIBA already teaches separate filters for the audio and video signals. One would have been motivated to select a filter having a higher cutoff frequency for the audio signal, as taught in NISHIMURA, to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in NISHIMURA, the second filter can have a cutoff frequency higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter.
However, neither TOSHIBA nor NISHIMURA teach that the fourth filter has at least one of a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the third filter or a gain of a stop band higher than a gain of a stop band of the third filter. NISHIMURA does teach that cutoff frequency of the third and fourth filters can be selected either by the user or based on the circumstances. ([0053], [0055]).
Examiner notes that the “gain change in a transition band” (i.e., the width between the stopband and passband) is recognized, by those skilled in the art, as a result-effective variable of a high-pass filter for Doppler ultrasound. (MPEP 2144.05, II.B. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”).
GE JAPAN teaches an ultrasonic Doppler system having an optimized Doppler filter. (Title and p.1, lines 1-2). In comparing Figures 9A and 9B of GE JAPAN, the reference teaches that conventional wall filters have a steep cutoff/transition, which can increase the risk of losing useful signal components. “FIG. 9 (a) is a diagram showing a conventional filter characteristic. In the figure, the vertical axis indicates gain, and the horizontal axis indicates frequency. As shown in the drawing, the filter characteristic of the conventional Doppler filter has a very steep rise, so that there is a higher risk that an effective signal component is cut off.” (p.1, lines 40-42). GE JAPAN suggests that a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more signal components to be preserved. “Therefore, if the filter characteristic can be made to have a gentle slope as shown in FIG. 9B, there is a possibility that an effective signal component can be picked up.” (Id). GE JAPAN teaches making the Doppler filter smoother by setting the constants of the circuit. “According to the present invention, as shown in FIG. 7, by setting the slope of the filter characteristic to a predetermined value of the circuit constants of the impedances 71 to Z7 of the resonance circuit, a considerably smooth characteristic can be obtained.” (p. 2, lines 38-40). GE JAPAN notes that the operator can listen to the signal and change the filter characteristics. (p.1, lines 32-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system such that the high-pass filter applied to the audio signal has a gain change in a transition band that is gentler than a gain change a conventional filter. As TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA teach a conventional filter for the video signal, a high-pass filter that can be optimized to have a gentler gain change, as taught in GE JAPAN, would necessarily have a gain change that is gentler than the gain change in the filter that is applied to the video signal. (See also Tatsuro, Baba. “Progress of Doppler Ultrasound System Design and Architecture.” Design and Architectures for Digital Signal Processing. IntechOpen, 2013, which teaches that the wall filters for CFM and spectral doppler are each high-order (i.e., steep cutoff). (Compare Section 5.2 to Section 5.3)). It is noted that the gain change of a filter is a known result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider when designing a system that is configured to improve the sound quality of the Doppler signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system to have an optimizable audio filter, as taught in GE JAPAN, because a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more relevant signal components to be preserved. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as both NISHIMURA and GE JAPAN teach that the audio filter can be modified/optimized.
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the translation of JP 2002325767 A (hereinafter “TOSHIBA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 7 August 2025), the translation of JP 4359093 B2 (hereinafter “NISHIMURA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 6 January 2025), a translation of JPS6198244A (cited in IDS filed on 11/13/2025) (hereinafter GE JAPAN), and “Digital Signal Processor (DSP) for Portable Ultrasound” (Rama Pailoor and Dev Pradhan. SPRAB18A, Texas Instruments (December 2008) (hereinafter referred to as “PAILOOR”) (previously provided in Office Action dated 6 January 2025).
With respect to claim 16 , TOSHIBA teaches transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave to obtain a reception signal related to an ultrasonic echo (see, e.g., [0019]: “transmitter/receiver 21”); detecting the reception signal to generate a Doppler signal (see, e.g., [0019]: “quadrature phase detector 23”). “[T]he quadrature phase detector 23 includes a digital mixer and a low-pass filter for each two channels corresponding to the real part component and the imaginary part component, respectively, and quadrature phase detects the echo signal.” ([0026]) and performing filter processing of cutting or suppressing a low-frequency component included in the Doppler signal and generating a first filtered Doppler signal and a second filtered Doppler signal from the Doppler signal. Figure 1 and CFM processing block 24 and Doppler processing block 25 [i.e., collectively a “filtering part”] that each include a wall filter for producing a first filtered signal and a second filtered signal, respectively (discussed further below)).
TOSHIBA also teaches performing frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal TOSHIBA teaches that “the spectrum Doppler processing block 25,” which includes the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44, is “functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]). The autocorrelator 43 and the CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis. (see, e.g., Baba, Tatsuro. “Investigation of Frequency Analysis Methods for Doppler Ultrasound Systems.” Applied Physics Research 5.2 (2013) describing that “From its birth till today, a complex autocorrelation (AC) method has been used for CFM because of its simplicity….Because the calculation load of the frequency analysis is very small, the AC method has been used.” (emphasis added) (Abstract)) and generating a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal. The “Doppler sound processing block 29” shown in Figure 1 outputs to the power amplifier 30 and speaker 31. TOSHIBA teaches that “the Doppler sound processing block 29 [is] functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]).
TOSHIBA also teaches displaying, on a monitor, a display image generated on the basis of the image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 the “monitor 28”; see also [0032] and [0035]) and outputting, by a speaker, Doppler sound generated on the basis of the sound signal, (see, e.g., Figure 1 and “speaker 31”; see also [0020]) wherein in the filter processing, a first filter is applied to the Doppler signal to generate the first filtered Doppler signal “The CFM processing block 24 is provided with a CT buffer 41, a wall filter 42, an autocorrelator 43, and a CFM calculator 44 in order from the signal input side.” (emphasis added) ([0027]). “The wall filter 42 is a high-pass filter that removes a clutter component due to a low frequency wall of the Doppler signal. The wall filter 42 removes the clutter component from the Doppler signal.” ([0029]), and a second filter is applied to the Doppler signal to generate the second filtered Doppler signal, wherein the first and second filters are in parallel. “[T]he spectrum Doppler processing block 25 includes a wall filter 51, a CINE buffer 52, an FFT 53, and a post calculator 54 in order from the input side thereof…” (emphasis added) ([0033]). “[T]he digital Doppler signal (IQ signal) described above is also sent to the wall filter 51, and the clutter component such as the heart wall is removed.” (emphasis added) ([0034]). NOTE: The wall filters 42 and 51 are in parallel.
TOSHIBA also teaches the first filter and the second filter include high-pass filters (see, e.g., [0029] describing that the wall filter 41 is a high-pass filter that removes “a clutter component” and [0033] describing that the wall filter 51 removes “the clutter component” as well.).
However, TOSHIBA does not teach that the second filter has a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the first filter.
In the same field of endeavor, NISHIMURA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus having a technique for removing a wall component of a Doppler blood flow velocity measuring apparatus applied to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. ([0001]). NISHIMURA’s system seeks to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). In the NISHIMURA system, prior to separating the Doppler signal for the monitor and the speaker, a common high-pass filter is applied. “The high-pass filter 601 [i.e., first filter] is a high-pass filter that removes low-frequency components in the Doppler blood flow signal….” ([0052]). “The high-pass filter 601 is a high-pass filter corresponding to a wall removal filter mounted on a general ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and selects one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency by an operator.” ([0053]).
Afterward, however, an additional high-pass filter is selected for the audio signal but not the video signal. “The wall component remover 603 removes the wall component from the output signal of the high pass filter 601.” ([0053]) (see also Figure 6 showing the output of 601 being provided to 602, 603). The wall component remover 603 includes a first high-pass filter 701 having a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, a second high-pass filter 702 having a cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, and a third high-pass filter 703. ([0055]). For circumstances in which the high-pass filter 702 (800 Hz) is automatically selected and the operator selects a cutoff frequency for the high pass filter 601 (e.g., one of 50, 100, 200, 400, or 600 Hz), the high-pass filter 702 will have a higher cutoff frequency than the high-pass filter 601.
Accordingly, NISHIMURA teaches that one can improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal” by modifying the characteristics (e.g., cutoff frequency) of the filter for the audio signal such that the filter characteristics differ from the filter characteristics of the video signal.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the second filter of the TOSHIBA system to have different filter characteristics (specifically the cutoff frequency) than the cutoff frequency of the first filter. TOSHIBA already teaches separate filters for the audio and video signals. One would have been motivated to select a filter having a higher cutoff frequency for the audio signal, as taught in NISHIMURA, to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in NISHIMURA, the second filter can have a cutoff frequency higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter.
However, neither TOSHIBA nor NISHIMURA teach that the second filter has a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the first filter.
Examiner notes that the “gain change in a transition band” (i.e., the width between the stopband and passband) is recognized, by those skilled in the art, as a result-effective variable of a high-pass filter for Doppler ultrasound. (MPEP 2144.05, II.B. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”).
GE JAPAN teaches an ultrasonic Doppler system having an optimized Doppler filter. (Title and p.1, lines 1-2). In comparing Figures 9A and 9B of GE JAPAN, the reference teaches that conventional wall filters have a steep cutoff/transition, which can increase the risk of losing useful signal components. “FIG. 9 (a) is a diagram showing a conventional filter characteristic. In the figure, the vertical axis indicates gain, and the horizontal axis indicates frequency. As shown in the drawing, the filter characteristic of the conventional Doppler filter has a very steep rise, so that there is a higher risk that an effective signal component is cut off.” (p.1, lines 40-42). GE JAPAN suggests that a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more signal components to be preserved. “Therefore, if the filter characteristic can be made to have a gentle slope as shown in FIG. 9B, there is a possibility that an effective signal component can be picked up.” (Id). GE JAPAN teaches making the Doppler filter smoother by setting the constants of the circuit. “According to the present invention, as shown in FIG. 7, by setting the slope of the filter characteristic to a predetermined value of the circuit constants of the impedances 71 to Z7 of the resonance circuit, a considerably smooth characteristic can be obtained.” (p. 2, lines 38-40). GE JAPAN notes that the operator can listen to the signal and change the filter characteristics. (p.1, lines 32-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system such that the high-pass filter applied to the audio signal has a gain change in a transition band that is gentler than a gain change a conventional filter. As TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA teach a conventional filter for the video signal, a high-pass filter that can be optimized to have a gentler gain change, as taught in GE JAPAN, would necessarily have a gain change that is gentler than the gain change in the filter that is applied to the video signal. (See also Tatsuro, Baba. “Progress of Doppler Ultrasound System Design and Architecture.” Design and Architectures for Digital Signal Processing. IntechOpen, 2013, which teaches that the wall filters for CFM and spectral doppler are each high-order (i.e., steep cutoff). (Compare Section 5.2 to Section 5.3)). It is noted that the gain change of a filter is a known result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider when designing a system that is configured to improve the sound quality of the Doppler signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system to have an optimizable audio filter, as taught in GE JAPAN, because a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more relevant signal components to be preserved. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as both NISHIMURA and GE JAPAN teach that the audio filter can be modified/optimized.
However, TOSHIBA, NISHIMURA, and GE JAPAN do not explicitly disclose a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable control program of an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, the control program causing the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus to execute.
PAILOOR teaches that “[Digital signal processors] DSPs and SoCs are specially designed single-chip digital microcomputers that process digitized electrical signals generated by electronic sensors (e.g., cameras, transducers, microphones, etc.) that will help to revolutionize the area of diagnostic ultrasound imaging.” (page 2, Introduction). “Programmable DSPs and SOCs, with architectures designed for implementing complex mathematical algorithms in real-time, can efficiently address all the processing needs of such a system.” (emphasis added) (Id). “To make application development easier, more portable from one hardware platform to another, and faster to market, embedded systems today are gravitating more and more to off-the-shelf embedded operating systems.” (emphasis added) (page 7, 3.3 Real-Time Operating Systems (RTOS)). Embedded operating systems “normally have a small memory footprint” and are “are usually configurable to allow you to add or remove features as needed.” (emphasis added) (Id). DSPs can provide “efficient signal processing, lower power consumption and lower cost, all leading to better ultrasound diagnostic imaging.” (Id).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to implement the steps of TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA using a non-transitory recording medium and a DSP that executes instructions from a control program stored on the non-transitory recording medium, as taught in PAILOOR. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the recoding medium and DSP because of their flexibility and power efficiencies and that they enable portable and low-cost systems. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by PAILOOR, non-transitory recording mediums and DSPs are well-suited for executing ultrasound imaging sessions.
With respect to claim 18, TOSHIBA teaches transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave to obtain a reception signal related to an ultrasonic echo (see, e.g., [0019]: “transmitter/receiver 21”); detecting the reception signal to generate a Doppler signal (see, e.g., [0019]: “quadrature phase detector 23”). “[T]he quadrature phase detector 23 includes a digital mixer and a low-pass filter for each two channels corresponding to the real part component and the imaginary part component, respectively, and quadrature phase detects the echo signal.” ([0026]) and performing filter processing of cutting or suppressing a low-frequency component included in the Doppler signal and generating a first filtered Doppler signal and a second filtered Doppler signal from the Doppler signal. Figure 1 and CFM processing block 24 and Doppler processing block 25 [i.e., collectively a “filtering part”] that each include a wall filter for producing a first filtered signal and a second filtered signal, respectively (discussed further below)) and performing frequency analysis on the first filtered Doppler signal to generate an image signal TOSHIBA teaches that “the spectrum Doppler processing block 25,” which includes the autocorrelator 43 and CFM calculator 44, is “functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]). The autocorrelator 43 and the CFM calculator 44 perform frequency analysis. (see, e.g., Baba, Tatsuro. “Investigation of Frequency Analysis Methods for Doppler Ultrasound Systems.” Applied Physics Research 5.2 (2013) describing that “From its birth till today, a complex autocorrelation (AC) method has been used for CFM because of its simplicity….Because the calculation load of the frequency analysis is very small, the AC method has been used.” (emphasis added) (Abstract)) and generating a sound signal based on the second filtered Doppler signal. The “Doppler sound processing block 29” shown in Figure 1 outputs to the power amplifier 30 and speaker 31. TOSHIBA teaches that “the Doppler sound processing block 29 [is] functionally configured by software processing of a DSP (digital signal processor).” ([0022]).
TOSHIBA also teaches displaying, on a monitor, a display image generated on the basis of the image signal (see, e.g., Figure 1 the “monitor 28”; see also [0032] and [0035]) and outputting, by a speaker, Doppler sound generated on the basis of the sound signal, (see, e.g., Figure 1 and “speaker 31”; see also [0020]) wherein in the filter processing, a third filter is applied to the Doppler signal to generate the first filtered Doppler signal “The CFM processing block 24 is provided with a CT buffer 41, a wall filter 42, an autocorrelator 43, and a CFM calculator 44 in order from the signal input side.” (emphasis added) ([0027]). “The wall filter 42 is a high-pass filter that removes a clutter component due to a low frequency wall of the Doppler signal. The wall filter 42 removes the clutter component from the Doppler signal.” ([0029]), and a fourth filter is applied to the Doppler to generate the second filtered Doppler signal “[T]he spectrum Doppler processing block 25 includes a wall filter 51, a CINE buffer 52, an FFT 53, and a post calculator 54 in order from the input side thereof…” (emphasis added) ([0033]). “[T]he digital Doppler signal (IQ signal) described above is also sent to the wall filter 51, and the clutter component such as the heart wall is removed.” (emphasis added) ([0034]).
TOSHIBA also teaches the third filter and the fourth filter include high-pass filters (see, e.g., [0029] describing that the wall filter 41 is a high-pass filter that removes “a clutter component” and [0033] describing that the wall filter 51 removes “the clutter component” as well.).
However, TOSHIBA does not teach that a cutoff frequency of the fourth filter is higher than a cutoff frequency of the third filter, and the fourth filter has at least one of a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the third filter, or a gain of a stop band higher than a gain of a stop band of the third filter.
In the same field of endeavor, NISHIMURA teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus having a technique for removing a wall component of a Doppler blood flow velocity measuring apparatus applied to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. ([0001]). NISHIMURA’s system seeks to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). In the NISHIMURA system, prior to separating the Doppler signal for the monitor and the speaker, a common high-pass filter is applied. “The high-pass filter 601 [i.e., first filter] is a high-pass filter that removes low-frequency components in the Doppler blood flow signal….” ([0052]). “The high-pass filter 601 is a high-pass filter corresponding to a wall removal filter mounted on a general ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and selects one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency by an operator.” ([0053]).
Afterward, however, an additional high-pass filter is selected for the audio signal only. “The wall component remover 603 removes the wall component from the output signal of the high pass filter 601.” ([0053]) (see also Figure 6 showing the output of 601 being provided to 602, 603 for the audio signal and 109 for the video signal). The wall component remover 603 includes a first high-pass filter 701 having a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, a second high-pass filter 702 having a cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, and a third high-pass filter 703. ([0055]). For circumstances in which the high-pass filter 702 (800 Hz) is automatically selected and the operator selects a cutoff frequency for the high pass filter 601 (e.g., one of 50, 100, 200, 400, or 600 Hz), the high-pass filter 702 will have a higher cutoff frequency than the high-pass filter 601.
Accordingly, NISHIMURA teaches that a cutoff frequency of the fourth filter [i.e., for the audio signal] is higher than a cutoff frequency of the third filter [i.e., for the video signal].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the second filter of the TOSHIBA system to have a cutoff frequency that is higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter. TOSHIBA already teaches separate filters for the audio and video signals. One would have been motivated to select a filter having a higher cutoff frequency for the audio signal, as taught in NISHIMURA, to improve “the sound quality of the sound (speaker) output of the Doppler signal….” ([0004]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in NISHIMURA, the second filter can have a cutoff frequency higher than the cutoff frequency of the first filter.
However, neither TOSHIBA nor NISHIMURA teach that the fourth filter has at least one of a gain change in a transition band gentler than a gain change in a transition band of the third filter or a gain of a stop band higher than a gain of a stop band of the third filter. NISHIMURA does teach that cutoff frequency of the third and fourth filters can be selected either by the user or based on the circumstances. ([0053], [0055]).
Examiner notes that the “gain change in a transition band” (i.e., the width between the stopband and passband) is recognized, by those skilled in the art, as a result-effective variable of a high-pass filter for Doppler ultrasound. (MPEP 2144.05, II.B. “Thus, after KSR, the presence of a known result-effective variable would be one, but not the only, motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art to experiment to reach another workable product or process.”).
GE JAPAN teaches an ultrasonic Doppler system having an optimized Doppler filter. (Title and p.1, lines 1-2). In comparing Figures 9A and 9B of GE JAPAN, the reference teaches that conventional wall filters have a steep cutoff/transition, which can increase the risk of losing useful signal components. “FIG. 9 (a) is a diagram showing a conventional filter characteristic. In the figure, the vertical axis indicates gain, and the horizontal axis indicates frequency. As shown in the drawing, the filter characteristic of the conventional Doppler filter has a very steep rise, so that there is a higher risk that an effective signal component is cut off.” (p.1, lines 40-42). GE JAPAN suggests that a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more signal components to be preserved. “Therefore, if the filter characteristic can be made to have a gentle slope as shown in FIG. 9B, there is a possibility that an effective signal component can be picked up.” (Id). GE JAPAN teaches making the Doppler filter smoother by setting the constants of the circuit. “According to the present invention, as shown in FIG. 7, by setting the slope of the filter characteristic to a predetermined value of the circuit constants of the impedances 71 to Z7 of the resonance circuit, a considerably smooth characteristic can be obtained.” (p. 2, lines 38-40). GE JAPAN notes that the operator can listen to the signal and change the filter characteristics. (p.1, lines 32-44).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system such that the high-pass filter applied to the audio signal has a gain change in a transition band that is gentler than a gain change a conventional filter. As TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA teach a conventional filter for the video signal, a high-pass filter that can be optimized to have a gentler gain change, as taught in GE JAPAN, would necessarily have a gain change that is gentler than the gain change in the filter that is applied to the video signal. (See also Tatsuro, Baba. “Progress of Doppler Ultrasound System Design and Architecture.” Design and Architectures for Digital Signal Processing. IntechOpen, 2013, which teaches that the wall filters for CFM and spectral doppler are each high-order (i.e., steep cutoff). (Compare Section 5.2 to Section 5.3)). It is noted that the gain change of a filter is a known result-effective variable that one of ordinary skill in the art would consider when designing a system that is configured to improve the sound quality of the Doppler signal. One of ordinary skill in the art would have chosen to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA system to have an optimizable audio filter, as taught in GE JAPAN, because a more gentle transition (i.e., slope) would allow more relevant signal components to be preserved. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as both NISHIMURA and GE JAPAN teach that the audio filter can be modified/optimized.
However, the cited art does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory recording medium storing a computer readable control program of an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, the control program causing the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus to execute.
PAILOOR teaches that “[Digital signal processors] DSPs and SoCs are specially designed single-chip digital microcomputers that process digitized electrical signals generated by electronic sensors (e.g., cameras, transducers, microphones, etc.) that will help to revolutionize the area of diagnostic ultrasound imaging.” (page 2, Introduction). “Programmable DSPs and SOCs, with architectures designed for implementing complex mathematical algorithms in real-time, can efficiently address all the processing needs of such a system.” (emphasis added) (Id). “To make application development easier, more portable from one hardware platform to another, and faster to market, embedded systems today are gravitating more and more to off-the-shelf embedded operating systems.” (emphasis added) (page 7, 3.3 Real-Time Operating Systems (RTOS)). Embedded operating systems “normally have a small memory footprint” and are “are usually configurable to allow you to add or remove features as needed.” (emphasis added) (Id). DSPs can provide “efficient signal processing, lower power consumption and lower cost, all leading to better ultrasound diagnostic imaging.” (Id).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to implement the steps of TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA using a non-transitory recording medium and a DSP that executes instructions from a control program stored on the non-transitory recording medium, as taught in PAILOOR. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the recoding medium and DSP because of their flexibility and power efficiencies and that they enable portable and low-cost systems. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by PAILOOR, non-transitory recording mediums and DSPs are well-suited for executing ultrasound imaging sessions.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the translation of JP 2002325767 A (hereinafter “TOSHIBA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 7 August 2025), the translation of JP 4359093 B2 (hereinafter “NISHIMURA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 6 January 2025), and a translation of JPS6198244A (cited in IDS filed on 11/13/2025) (hereinafter GE JAPAN) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2007/0161898A1 (hereinafter referred to as “HAO”).
With respect to claim 5, NISHIMURA teaches a first setting part operable by a user to set the filter characteristic of the first filter. In NISHIMURA, an operator may select one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency for the high-pass filter 601. ([0053]).
NISHIMURA does not explicitly teach a second setting part operable by the user to set the filter characteristic of the second filter. However, NISHIMURA does teach the first filter cut-off being selectable and also teaches using different high-pass filters with different cutoff-frequencies.
HAO discloses systems “for raw data reprocessing and storing data for raw data reprocessing.” ([0005]) The raw data enables reanalysis that may be “performed after the patient has left.” ([0005]) “During review, different clutter filtering may be selected to focus on a different type of flow.” ([0023]). “Thorough and ad hoc reanalysis of the acquired data may be performed after the patient has left.” (Abstract). “In one embodiment, the settings are for generating a color flow image. The desired clutter filter, autocorrelation and threshold functions are selected for two- or three-dimensional velocity, energy, and/or variance imaging. The clutter filter may be set to isolate or emphasize information at different frequency bands.” ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA apparatus to enable a user to select a filter characteristic of the second filter. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable changing the cutoff frequency of the second filter in order to allow the user to improve the quality of data that may be reviewed and/or to enable a more comprehensive analysis as taught in HAO. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in HAO, systems are capable of being modified to enable filter selection by the user.
With respect to claim 6, NISHIMURA teaches the filter characteristic of the first filter and the filter characteristic of the second filter are cutoff frequencies. “The high-pass filter 601 is a high-pass filter corresponding to a wall removal filter mounted on a general ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and selects one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency by an operator.” ([0053]). The wall component remover 603 includes a first high-pass filter 701 having a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, a second high-pass filter 702 having a cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, and a third high-pass filter 703. ([0055]). Moreover, HAO teaches that “[t]he clutter filter may be set to isolate or emphasize information at different frequency bands.” ([0056]).
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the translation of JP 2002325767 A (hereinafter “TOSHIBA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 7 August 2025), the translation of JP 4359093 B2 (hereinafter “NISHIMURA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 6 January 2025), and a translation of JPS6198244A (cited in IDS filed on 11/13/2025) (hereinafter GE JAPAN), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publ. Nos. 2007/0161898A1 (hereinafter referred to as “HAO”) and 2016/0081662A1 (hereinafter referred to as “DENK”).
With respect to claim 7, NISHIMURA teaches a setting part operable by a user to select the cutoff frequency of a first filter from multiple possible frequencies ([0053]). NISHIMURA also teaches the second filter having a lower limit value (50 Hz). ([0055]).
NISHIMURA does not explicitly teach a third setting part operable by a user to set cutoff frequencies of the first filter and the second filter.
HAO discloses systems “for raw data reprocessing and storing data for raw data reprocessing.” ([0005]) The raw data enables reanalysis that may be “performed after the patient has left.” ([0005]) “During review, different clutter filtering may be selected to focus on a different type of flow.” ([0023]). “Thorough and ad hoc reanalysis of the acquired data may be performed after the patient has left.” (Abstract). “In one embodiment, the settings are for generating a color flow image. The desired clutter filter, autocorrelation and threshold functions are selected for two- or three-dimensional velocity, energy, and/or variance imaging. The clutter filter may be set to isolate or emphasize information at different frequency bands.” ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA apparatus to enable a user to select a filter characteristic of the second filter. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable changing the cutoff frequency of the second filter in order to allow the user to improve the quality of data that may be reviewed and/or to enable a more comprehensive analysis as taught in HAO. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in HAO, systems are capable of being modified to enable filter selection by the user.
The cited art does not explicitly teach when the set cutoff frequency of the second filter is lower than the lower limit value, the filtering part applies the second filter having the cutoff frequency of the lower limit value, and generates the second filtered Doppler signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, DENK teaches an adaptive ultrasound system that automatically corrects user selections to optimize data. (Abstract) (see also [0070]). In the context of time gain compensation (TGC), an ultrasound system may automatically correct TGC settings in response to user input/commands. ([0070]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA-HAO apparatus to automatically correct user settings when the user settings would result in less optimal data as taught in DENK. More specifically, one having ordinary skill in the art would modify the program that implements the imaging session to automatically correct a setting (i.e., increase the value) to a lower limit value when the user selects a value that is lower than the lower limit value. In this case, if the user selected a cut-off frequency that was less than a lower limit for the cut-off frequency, then the system would disregard the user selected cut-off frequency and obtain data using the cut-off frequency at the lower limit. One having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the program so that the ultrasound data is better than what the data would have been with the user’s selection. There would be a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in DENK, ultrasound systems can be programmed to automatically correct settings.
With respect to claim 8, NISHIMURA does not teach a fourth setting part operable by the user to set the lower limit value. However, in the same field of endeavor, DENK teaches an adaptive ultrasound system that automatically corrects user selections to optimize data. (Abstract) (see also [0070]). In the context of time gain compensation (TGC), an ultrasound system may automatically correct TGC settings in response to user input/commands. ([0070]). However, the automatic correction in DENK is optional. DENK teaches an “auto-correction button” that may or may not be activated by the user. “The TGC auto-correction button 224 may allow the user to request, instruct, or trigger automatic time gain compensation (TGC) corrections.” In one example, DENK teaches allowing the user to manually move settings from the optimal selections. “In a subsequent state B, the user may effectuate manual TGC correction, corresponding to a particular, manually selected combination of applicable TGC parameters, resulting from the user manually selecting particular setting for each of the TGC parameters, by individually sliding each of the plurality of ‘virtual’ sliders 222 (from the setting of the optimal TGC).” (emphasis added) ([0058]). Thus, the user in DENK is permitted to change a limit value set by the system.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA-HAO-DENK apparatus to automatically correct user settings (e.g., lower limit values) but then to also allow the user to change the corrected settings, as taught in DENK, thereby allowing the user to change the lower limit values of the system prior to acquiring data. One would have been motivated to change the program that implements the ultrasound imaging session to permit a user to disable the automatic correction to the settings. By adding a disablement feature, the user is made aware that the ultrasound system may be operating outside of standard parameters while at the same time granting the user the flexibility to obtain such data if the user decides it may be worthwhile. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught by DENK, ultrasound systems can be programmed to disable auto-correction features.
Claims 13 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the translation of JP 2002325767 A (hereinafter “TOSHIBA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 7 August 2025), the translation of JP 4359093 B2 (hereinafter “NISHIMURA”) (previously provided with the Office Action dated 6 January 2025), and a translation of JPS6198244A (cited in IDS filed on 11/13/2025) (hereinafter GE JAPAN), as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Publ. No. 2007/0161898A1 (hereinafter referred to as “HAO”).
With respect to claim 13, NISHIMURA teaches a fifth setting part operable by the user to set the filter characteristic of the third filter. For the high-pass filter 601, an operator may select one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency. ([0053]).
NISHIMURA does not explicitly teach a sixth setting part operable by the user to set the filter characteristic of the fourth filter. However, NISHIMURA does teach using different high-pass filters with different cutoff-frequencies.
HAO discloses systems “for raw data reprocessing and storing data for raw data reprocessing.” ([0005]) The raw data enables reanalysis that may be “performed after the patient has left.” ([0005]) “During review, different clutter filtering may be selected to focus on a different type of flow.” ([0023]). “Thorough and ad hoc reanalysis of the acquired data may be performed after the patient has left.” (Abstract). “In one embodiment, the settings are for generating a color flow image. The desired clutter filter, autocorrelation and threshold functions are selected for two- or three-dimensional velocity, energy, and/or variance imaging. The clutter filter may be set to isolate or emphasize information at different frequency bands.” ([0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to modify the TOSHIBA-NISHIMURA-KWAK/GURACAR apparatus to enable a user to select a filter characteristic of the second filter. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to enable changing the cutoff frequency of the second filter in order to allow the user to improve the quality of data that may be reviewed and/or to enable a more comprehensive analysis as taught in HAO. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because, as taught in HAO, systems are capable of being modified to enable filter selection by the user.
With respect to claim 14, NISHIMURA teaches wherein the filter characteristic of the third filter and the filter characteristic of the fourth filter are cutoff frequencies. “The high-pass filter 601 is a high-pass filter corresponding to a wall removal filter mounted on a general ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, and selects one of 50, 100, 200, 400, 600, and 800 Hz as a cutoff frequency by an operator.” ([0053]). The wall component remover 603 includes a first high-pass filter 701 having a cutoff frequency of 50 Hz, a second high-pass filter 702 having a cutoff frequency of 800 Hz, and a third high-pass filter 703. ([0055]). Moreover, HAO teaches that “[t]he clutter filter may be set to isolate or emphasize information at different frequency bands.” ([0056]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/25/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to each of independent claims 1, 9, and 15-18, Applicant argues that “the signal applied to the first [or third] filter and the second [or fourth] filter are the Doppler signal generated by detecting the same reception signal.” (emphasis original).
However, the claims do not recite “the same reception signal.” Instead, the claims recite “the reception signal.” Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Moreover, examiners are obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation during prosecution. (see MPEP 2111).
In this case, ultrasound imaging sessions for the same patient often include both color-flow imaging and spectral doppler. (see, e.g., Kruskal, Jonathan B., et al. “Optimizing Doppler and color flow US: application to hepatic sonography.” Radiographics 24.3 (2004): 657-675). Notably, each of color-flow imaging and spectral doppler receive and analyze a Doppler signal. In each case, the detector of the ultrasound probe detects a reception signal and generates a “Doppler signal.” In the case of color-flow imaging and spectral doppler (also referred to as “triplex imaging”), the Doppler signal from the ultrasound probe is processed through a color-flow process, and the doppler signal from the same ultrasound probe is processed through a spectral doppler process.
In order to overcome the current rejection, Examiner suggests limiting the claims to a “spectral Doppler mode” or similar limitation. HOWEVER, Applicant may wish to first consider fetal heart monitoring applications that generate audio and video signals. (see, e.g., US 20180132832 A1).
Conclusion
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 JASON P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-1386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00CT.
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) 270-5284. 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.
/JASON P GROSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797