DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 1, line 6, the word -- the -- should be inserted before the word “contributions”. In lines 14-15, the phrase “the sound speed” should be changed to -- a sound speed --. In line 15, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “TCP/IP”.
In claim 5, lines 17-18, the phrase “a corresponding spatial location” should be changed to -- the corresponding spatial location --. In line the word -- a -- should be inserted before the word “TCP/IP”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 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.
In claim 1, lines 2-4, the phrase “spraying, with a processor, … an impulse response curve” is indefinite since it is unclear what is meant by “spraying” a data sample of an ultrasonic beam. What does the “spraying” of the beam along a curve? Please clarify. In line 5, the phrase “collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample” is indefinite since it is unclear what is being considered as “contributions” of the data sample. Please clarify. In lines 9-11, the phrase “sorting, with the processor, … to form common image point gathers … second memory location” is indefinite since it is unclear what is “common” about points. Please clarify.
In claim 2, line 3, the phrase “an updated sound speed value” is indefinite since there is no prior sound speed value claimed beforehand for the sound speed value to be updated. Please clarify.
In claim 5, lines 2-4, the phrase “spraying, with a processor, … an impulse response curve” is indefinite since it is unclear what is meant by “spraying” a data sample of an ultrasonic beam. What does the “spraying” of the beam along a curve? Please clarify. In line 5, the phrase “collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample” is indefinite since it is unclear what is being considered as “contributions” of the data sample. Please clarify. In lines 9-11, the phrase “sorting, with the processor, … to form common image point gathers … second memory location” is indefinite since it is unclear what is “common” about points. Please clarify.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 (and dependent claims 2-7) recite “A method for obtaining a sound speed image, comprising the steps of: (1) spraying, with a processor, a data sample of an ultrasound beam, measured with an apparatus that contains an ultrasound array transducer, into an image space of a subject along an impulse response curve; (2) collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample in the image space; (3) summing contributions of a plurality of data samples by repeating the step (1) and the step (2) for a plurality of ultrasound beams, with the processer, to generate a plurality of partial images, and storing the partial images in a first memory location; (4) sorting, with the processor, the partial images to form common image point gathers at a plurality of spatial locations, and storing the common image point gathers in a second memory location; (5) measuring, with the processor, residual moveout values on the common image point gathers, each residual moveout value relating to a corresponding spatial location; and (6) inverting, with the processor, the residual moveout values to form an image of the sound speed, and sending the sound speed image to a net address via TCP/IP, a display port on a host computer, or a third memory location.”
Claims 1-7, in view of the claim limitations, recite the abstract idea of “(1) spraying, with a processor, a data sample of an ultrasound beam, measured with an apparatus that contains an ultrasound array transducer, into an image space of a subject along an impulse response curve; (2) collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample in the image space; (3) summing contributions of a plurality of data samples by repeating the step (1) and the step (2) for a plurality of ultrasound beams, with the processer, to generate a plurality of partial images, and storing the partial images in a first memory location; (4) sorting, with the processor, the partial images to form common image point gathers at a plurality of spatial locations, and storing the common image point gathers in a second memory location; (5) measuring, with the processor, residual moveout values on the common image point gathers, each residual moveout value relating to a corresponding spatial location; and (6) inverting, with the processor, the residual moveout values to form an image of the sound speed, and sending the sound speed image to a net address via TCP/IP, a display port on a host computer, or a third memory location.”
As a whole, in view of the claim limitations, but for the computer components and systems performing the claimed functions, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited “(1) spraying, with a processor, a data sample of an ultrasound beam, measured with an apparatus that contains an ultrasound array transducer, into an image space of a subject along an impulse response curve; (2) collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample in the image space; (3) summing contributions of a plurality of data samples by repeating the step (1) and the step (2) for a plurality of ultrasound beams, with the processer, to generate a plurality of partial images, and storing the partial images in a first memory location; (4) sorting, with the processor, the partial images to form common image point gathers at a plurality of spatial locations, and storing the common image point gathers in a second memory location; (5) measuring, with the processor, residual moveout values on the common image point gathers, each residual moveout value relating to a corresponding spatial location; and (6) inverting, with the processor, the residual moveout values to form an image of the sound speed, and sending the sound speed image to a net address via TCP/IP, a display port on a host computer, or a third memory location.”; therefore, the claims recite mental processes. Accordingly, the claims recite a mental process, and thus, the claims recite an abstract idea under the first prong of Step 2A.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application under the second prong of Step 2A. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea of “the method carried out by a processor” as recited by claims 1 and 5, individually and when viewed as an ordered combination, and pursuant to the broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the additional elements are computing elements recited at high level of generality implementing the abstract idea on a computer (i.e. apply it), and thus, are no more than applying the abstract idea with generic computer components. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. While the claims nominally require an “ultrasound array transducer” and “processor”, these recitations amount to: 1) field-of-use limitations: the ultrasound context merely describes where the abstract mathematical/mental processes are applied, not how they improve ultrasound technology; 2) Insignificant extra-solution activity: “storing … in a … memory location” (in claims 1 and 5) or “sending … to a net address via TCP/IP … or a memory location” (in claims 1 and 5) are post-solution data gathering and output functions; 3) generic computer implementation: the “processor” performs routine data processing steps without specification of a particular machine or technological improvement to computer functioning. The specification acknowledges in paragraph [0003] that prior art method exist for ultrasound sound speed measurement (travel time tomography, diffraction tomography, deep learning methods, full waveform inversion). The claims do not recite specific improvement over these techniques – only different mathematical operations applied to ultrasound data. No concrete technological improvement is claimed. The specification describes better images and new measurements but does not claim specific architectural features, signal processing hardware improvements, transducer modification, or algorithmic innovations that improve ultrasound scanner operation. The claims read on performing the mathematical analysis on any general-purpose computer with stored ultrasound data.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception under Step 2B. As noted above, the aforementioned additional elements beyond the recited abstract idea, as an order combination, are no more than mere instructions to implement the idea using generic computer components (i.e. storing), and further, generally link the abstract idea to a field of use, which is not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea; therefore, the additional elements are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than an abstract idea. Additionally, these recitations as an ordered combination, simply append the abstract idea to recitations of generic computer structure performing generic computer functions that are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the field. Furthermore, as an ordered combination, these elements amount to generic computer components performing repetitive calculations, receiving or transmitting data over a network, which, as held by the courts, are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP 2106.05(d); July 2015 Update, p. 7. Moreover, aside from the aforementioned additional elements, the remaining elements of dependent claims 2-4 and 6-7 do not transform the recited abstract idea into a patent eligible invention because these claims merely recite further limitations that provide no more than simply narrowing the recited abstract idea. Looking at these limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing additional that is sufficient to amount to significantly more than the recited abstract idea because they simply provide instructions to use a generic arrangement of generic computer components and recitations of generic computer structure that perform well-understood, routine, and conventional computer (WURC) functions that are used to "storing" the recited abstract idea. Thus, the elements of the claims, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, are not sufficient to ensure that the claim as a whole amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The additional elements beyond the judicial exceptions are well-understood, routine, conventional (WURC): “processor”, “ultrasound array transducer”, “storing … memory location”, “sending … memory location”. The combination of these elements with the abstract mathematical/mental operations does not amount to an inventive concept. The claims essentially instruct practitioners to: 1) acquire ultrasound data conventionally, 2) apply known mathematical inversion techniques to the data, 3) output results conventionally. Since there are no limitations in these claims that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that these claims amount to significantly more than the exception itself, claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0206854 (Peng et al.).
With regards to claim 1, Peng et al. discloses a system for imaging tissues using an ultrasound array transducer comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-9, a method for obtaining a sound speed image (e.g. Figure 6) comprising the steps of (1) spraying (e.g. ultrasound beams are sprayed; paragraph [0043]), with a processor (e.g. GPU hardware; paragraph [0033]), a data sample of an ultrasound beam (e.g. ultrasound beam; paragraph [0008]), measured with an apparatus (e.g. ultrasound imaging device; paragraph [0003]) that contains an ultrasound array transducer (e.g. ultrasound array transducer with at least four active elements; paragraph [0008]), into an image space (e.g. tissue/bone; paragraphs [0057],[0058]) of a subject (e.g. patient) along an impulse response curve (e.g. impulse response curve; paragraphs [0008],[0023]); (2) collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample in the image space (e.g. paragraphs [0034],[0043]); (3) summing contributions of a plurality of data samples by repeating the step (1) and the step (2) for a plurality of ultrasound beams, with the processer, to generate a plurality of partial images (e.g. paragraphs [0008],[0033],[0043]), and storing the partial images in a first memory location (e.g. memory in GPU hardware; paragraph [0033]); (4) sorting (e.g. paragraphs [0008],[0034],[0043]), with the processor, the partial images to form common image point gathers (e.g. common image point gathers; paragraphs [0008],[0036] to [0050]) at a plurality of spatial locations, and storing the common image point gathers in a second memory location (e.g. memory in GPU hardware; paragraph [0033]); (5) measuring, with the processor, residual moveout values (e.g. envelope amplitude or acoustic energy level or signal coherency; paragraphs [0005],[0040],[0041]) on the common image point gathers, each residual moveout value relating to a corresponding spatial location; (6) inverting (e.g. stacking to form final image; paragraphs [0036],[0038],[0040],[0043],[0060]), with the processor, the residual moveout values to form an image of the sound speed (e.g. paragraphs [0037],[0040]), and sending the sound speed image to a net address via TCP/IP, a display port on a host computer, or a third memory location (e.g. memory in GPU hardware - paragraph [0033] or a display port to show image in the ultrasound imaging device – paragraph [0003]). (See, paragraphs [0033] to [0060]).
With regards to claim 2, Peng et al. further discloses setting an initial sound speed (e.g. a standard fixed speed of approximately 1,540 m/s is set for beamforming for soft tissue according to AI overview); calculating, with the processor, an updated sound speed value at the corresponding spatial location using the initial sound speed and the each residual moveout value (e.g. when the correct sound speed is used in beamforming, the common image point gathering shall be flat; paragraph [0037]; Figure 2).
With regards to claim 3, Peng et al. further discloses the initial sound speed is 1,540 m/s (e.g. a standard fixed speed of approximately 1,540 m/s is set for beamforming for soft tissue according to AI overview)
With regards to claim 4, Peng et al. further discloses applying a spatial smoothing, with the processor, to the sound speed image to remove rapid variations (e.g. optimal weights on contributing offsets; paragraphs [0037],[0040] to [0043]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2024/0206854 (Peng et al.) in view of U.S. Patent 5,578,757 (Roth).
With regards to claim 5, Peng et al. discloses a system for imaging tissues using an ultrasound array transducer comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-9, a method for obtaining a sound speed image (e.g. Figure 6) comprising the steps of (1) spraying (e.g. ultrasound beams are sprayed; paragraph [0043]), with a processor (e.g. GPU hardware; paragraph [0033]), a data sample of an ultrasound beam (e.g. ultrasound beam; paragraph [0008]), measured with an apparatus (e.g. ultrasound imaging device; paragraph [0003]) that contains an ultrasound array transducer (e.g. ultrasound array transducer with at least four active elements; paragraph [0008]), into an image space (e.g. tissue/bone; paragraphs [0057],[0058]) of a subject (e.g. patient) along an impulse response curve (e.g. impulse response curve; paragraphs [0008],[0023]); (2) collecting, with the processor, contributions of the data sample in the image space (e.g. paragraphs [0034],[0043]); (3) summing contributions of a plurality of data samples by repeating the step (1) and the step (2) for a plurality of ultrasound beams, with the processer, to generate a plurality of partial images (e.g. paragraphs [0008],[0033],[0043]), and storing the partial images in a first memory location (e.g. memory in GPU hardware; paragraph [0033]); (4) sorting (e.g. paragraphs [0008],[0034],[0043]), with the processor, the partial images to form common image point gathers (e.g. common image point gathers; paragraphs [0008],[0036] to [0050]) at a plurality of spatial locations, and storing the common image point gathers in a second memory location (e.g. memory in GPU hardware; paragraph [0033]); (5) measuring, with the processor, residual moveout values (e.g. envelope amplitude or acoustic energy level or signal coherency; paragraphs [0005],[0040],[0041]) on the common image point gathers, each residual moveout value relating to a corresponding spatial location; (6) applying, with the processor, residual moveout corrections to flatten the common image point gathers (e.g. when the correct sound speed is used in beamforming, the common image point gathering shall be flat; paragraph [0037]; Figure 2); (7) measuring, with the processor, amplitudes and reflection angles on the common image point gathers, each pair of amplitude and reflection angle relating to a corresponding spatial location (e.g. paragraphs [0013],[0015],[0016],[0034],[0036],[0037], [0040],[0043],[0051]); (8) inverting, with the processor, the amplitudes and reflection angles to form an image of the sound speed (e.g. paragraphs [0037],[0040]), and sending the sound speed image to a net address via TCP/IP, a display port on a host computer, or a third memory location (e.g. memory in GPU hardware - paragraph [0033] or a display port to show image in the ultrasound imaging device – paragraph [0003]). (See, paragraphs [0033] to [0060]).
The only difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is the claim is directed to a method for obtaining a Poisson’s ratio image instead of a method for obtaining a sound speed image.
Roth discloses a method of Poisson’s ratio imaging comprising, as illustrated in Figures 1-3, an ultrasound transducer sensor assembly having an ultrasonic probe scanning each area of a test subject using longitudinal wave and shear wave to form an image of Poisson’s rate (e.g. column 2, lines 30-51). (See, column 2, lines 17-51).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of obtaining a Poisson’s ratio image as suggested by Roth in lieu of obtaining a sound speed image in the system of Peng et al. to have the ability to create accurate numerical analysis of the test subject and to display the Poisson’s ratio variation of the test subject. (See, column 1, lines 23-30 of Roth).
With regards to claim 6, Roth further discloses estimating a normal incident reflection amplitude; calculating, with the processor, a proxy of Poisson's ratio at the corresponding spatial location using the normal incident reflection amplitude and the measured amplitudes at a plurality of reflection angles. (See, column 2, lines 30-51).
With regards to claim 7, Roth further discloses estimating a normal incident reflection amplitude; calculating, with the processor, a proxy of shear wave speed contrast at the corresponding spatial location using the normal incident reflection amplitude and the measured amplitudes at a plurality of reflection angles. (See, column 2, lines 30-51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Bae, Robert, Sun, Mauldin, Jr., Duncan, Frenz, Vanderby, and Bachmann, are related to a system for displaying a sound speed image using ultrasound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
/HELEN C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855