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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The listing of references in the specification is not a proper information disclosure statement. 37 CFR 1.98(b) requires a list of all patents, publications, or other information submitted for consideration by the Office, and MPEP § 609.04(a) states, "the list may not be incorporated into the specification but must be submitted in a separate paper." Therefore, unless the references have been cited by the examiner on form PTO-892, they have not been considered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 (and its related dependent claims 2–8) is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: “virtual elements” and specific details thereof, as defined in claim 3. As set forth in claim 1, it is not clear what “virtual elements” are, and furthermore (*), it is essential to consider the “adjusted element coordinates” for the receiving, and thus the claim should be amended to include the language of claim 3 accordingly.
Claim 1 and its related dependent claims, and claim 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, see (*) above.
Regarding claim 6, the claimed, “computing delays and weight for each” … “virtual element” is unclear. The claim is indefinite because the claims do not set forth determining adjusted element coordinates for the virtual elements. Thus, it is unclear how “computing delays and weight for each … virtual element” is performed without adjusted element coordinates for the virtual elements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 9–20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hajati (US Pub. # 20150345987).
Regarding claims 9 and 13, Hajati teaches, “A system (method) for imaging a target object (para. [0082]), the system comprising: a plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies (Fig. 9A and 9B, ref. # 905, 955; [0092]), each ultrasound transducer assembly comprising a plurality of transducer elements (see para. [0092]); and control circuitry operatively coupled to the plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies and configured to operate the plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies (see [0090] and further see discussion of acquiring images throughout Hajati), wherein the ultrasound transducer assemblies are tileable into a matrix or array configuration (see Fig. 9A, 9B; para. [0090]).”
Regarding claim 10, Hajati teaches, “wherein the matrix or array configuration is a 1- dimensional array, a 2-dimensional matrix or array, a curved matrix array, a piece-wise curved matrix or array, or a flat matrix or array (see Fig. 1 and 6).”
Regarding claim 11, Hajati teaches, “wherein each ultrasound transducer assembly further comprises an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) integrated thereon (see para. [0027]).”
Regarding claim 12, Hajati teaches, “wherein each ultrasound transducer assembly of the plurality is adjusted for relative tilt and offset with respect to a common coordinate system for the plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies (see para. [0099], describing use of beam steering; an adjustment “for relative tilt and offset with respect to a common coordinate system for the plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies” is implicit for this type of tiled array.).”
Regarding claim 14, Hajati teaches, “wherein the matrix or array configuration is a 1- dimensional array, a 2-dimensional matrix or array, a curved matrix or array, a piece-wise curved matrix or array, or a flat matrix or array (see Fig. 1 and 6).”
Regarding claim 15, Hajati teaches, “wherein one or more gaps are present between adjacent ultrasound transducer assemblies when tiled into the matrix or array configuration (see Fig. 9A, 9B).”
Regarding claim 16, Hajati teaches, “wherein each ultrasound transducer assembly comprises an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) operatively coupled to and integrated with the plurality of transducer assemblies for each ultrasound transducer assembly (see para. [0027]).”
Regarding claim 17, Hajati teaches, “wherein each ultrasound transducer assembly of the plurality is adjusted for relative tilt and offset with respect to a common coordinate system for the plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies (see para. [0099], describing use of beam steering; an adjustment “for relative tilt and offset with respect to a common coordinate system for the plurality of ultrasound transducer assemblies” is implicit for this type of tiled array.).”
Regarding claim 18, Hajati teaches, “wherein at least one ultrasound transducer assembly of the plurality is comprised of one or more capacitive micromachined ultrasound transducer (cMUT), piezoelectric micromachined ultrasound transducer (pMUT), or bulk PZT transducer elements (see para. [0003, 0041]).”
Regarding claim 19, Hajati teaches, “wherein the plurality of the transducer elements for at least one ultrasound transducer assembly comprises a matrix or array of the transducer elements (see Fig. 1 and 6).”
Regarding claim 20, Hajati teaches, “wherein the plurality of the transducer elements for at least one ultrasound transducer assembly comprises a 2-dimensional matrix of the transducer elements (see Fig. 1 and 6).”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 (and its related dependent claims) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. (notably, incorporating claim 3 into claim 1, and amending claim 6 to overcome the 112 rejection as set forth above)
Regarding claim 1, the prior art does not teach or suggest the claimed, “synthesizing receive signals for one or more virtual elements within gaps between the ultrasound transducer assemblies; and (vi) forming a dynamically focused receive beam based on the processed receive signals of the one or more transducer elements and synthesized receive signals of the one or more virtual elements.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO–892 form. The references cited herewith teach ultrasound transducer devices with configurations and control similar to the present application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN D WALSH whose telephone number is (571)272-2726. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 8:30am-6:30pm.
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, Walter Lindsay can be reached at 571-272-1674. 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.
/RYAN D WALSH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights