DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 11/27/2025 concerning application no. 18/298,212 filed on 04/10/2023.
Claims 1-9 and 21-27 are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see 1-6, filed 10/10/2025, with respect to the restriction have been fully considered and are persuasive. The restriction has been withdrawn as per the petition decision filed 11/26/2025.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/10/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the Rothberg fails to teach the amended language. Applicant argues that Rothberg does not disclose digital delay-processing beamforming. Applicant argues that Rothberg does not mention the target axial pressure provide along a propagation axis.
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 716.01(c) establishes “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., digital delay-processing beamforming) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). 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). As stated in the prior action, filed 08/08/2025, “It is extremely well-known that beamforming is a method that involves the control of the transmission and reception to ensure directionality.1 Furthermore, it is a fundamental principle in acoustics that sound, including ultrasound, is a pressure wave over a period of time.2 Should Applicant consider the beamforming to be performed in a different manner, language to indicate that should be present in the claim. Currently, the claim is broad as it establishes “determining a transmit delay function and a transmit apodization function for the ultrasound transducer based on a target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam for a given configuration of the ultrasound transducer”. Such beamforming with the control according to delay-summing and apodization is well-known to be used in controlling ultrasound parameters.” Furthermore, Applicant’s arguments are contrary to Rothberg’s teaching. Paragraph 0175 teaches that the beamforming is done with delay processing and in the digital domain. While Applicant may be their own lexicographer, the prior art need not recite verbatim terminology as Applicant. Paragraph 0176 teaches the use of apodization to reduce sidelobes and ensuring that the apodization is to achieve a desired type and degree of beamforming may be implemented. Additionally, at least Fig. 1 clearly shows ultrasound propagation in an axial direction. Applicant’s allegation that there are now transmission delay functions are without support. Paragraph 0174 teaches beamforming can be applied on the transmission side and can be used in imaging to facilitate focused ultrasound imaging at a desired part of the subject. With Applicant’s argument that paragraphs 0041 and 0044 provides a mention of the propagation axis, Applicant is reminded that the claims are rejected under the art. The claims are broad. The specification is not rejected under the art. Rather, the language of the claims is assessed.
Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 3 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam is defined based on an axial beam length and an axial beam center, and wherein the target axial pressure profile includes a constant pressure along an entirety of the axial beam length”. While the claim establishing the profile according to an axial beam length and center, the specification fails to provide support for a profile such that there is constant pressure along the beam length. Fig. 17 shows beam profiles but they are shown to have varying pressure according to the length. Additionally, it is well known in art that sound attenuates3. Given that, thee specification fails to clear support on how the attenuation of sound is addressed such that there is constant sound pressure. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 1-9 and 27 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the acoustic beam comprises a plurality of multiplexed non-diffracting acoustic beam components each having a different axial acoustic profile”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the controlling of the acoustic beam is establishing the multiplexing or if the claim is establishing the control to be a transmission of an already multiplexed beam.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam is defined based on an axial beam length and an axial beam center, and wherein the target axial pressure profile includes a constant pressure along an entirety of the axial beam length”. This claim element is indefinite. It is well known in art that sound attenuates4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what establishes a constant pressure along the axial length of the beam such that attenuation does not occur.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 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.
Claims 1 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561).
Regarding claim 1, Rothberg teaches method for transmitting a non-diffracting acoustic beam with an ultrasound transducer that includes a plurality of transducer elements, the method comprising:
determining a transmit delay function and a transmit apodization function for the ultrasound transducer based on a target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam for a given configuration of the ultrasound transducer, wherein the target axial pressure profile is a target acoustic pressure along a propagation axis of the acoustic beam (Paragraph 0174 teaches beamforming can be applied on the transmission side and can be used in imaging to facilitate focused ultrasound imaging at a desired part of the subject. Paragraph 0175 teaches that the beamforming is done with delay processing and in the digital domain. Paragraph 0176 teaches the use of apodization to reduce sidelobes and ensuring that the apodization is to achieve a desired type and degree of beamforming may be implemented. Paragraph 0178 teaches that the beams can be Bessel beams. Paragraph 0413 teaches that a desired depth of focus can be provided. Fig. 4 shows the wave projection along the projection axis of the array. Paragraph 0458 teaches the identification of a location and an angle for ultrasound emission. Paragraph 0014 teaches that the amplitude can be used in the signal analysis. Paragraph 0326 teaches the amplitude can be used in the formation of images); and
controlling the ultrasound transducer to transmit the acoustic beam by sending electrical signals to the plurality of transducer elements based on the transmit delay function and the transmit apodization function, wherein the acoustic beam comprises a plurality of multiplexed non-diffracting acoustic beam components each having a different axial acoustic profile (Paragraph 0174 teaches beamforming can be applied on the transmission side and can be used in imaging to facilitate focused ultrasound imaging at a desired part of the subject. Paragraph 0175 teaches that the beamforming is done with delay processing and in the digital domain. Paragraph 0176 teaches the use of apodization to reduce sidelobes and ensuring that the apodization is to achieve a desired type and degree of beamforming may be implemented. Paragraph 0178 teaches that the beams can be Bessel beams. Paragraph 0105 teaches the use of probes with multiple ultrasound elements and used for imaging. Paragraph 0413 teaches that the beams may be focused and steered. Paragraph 0265 teaches that frequency division multiplexing can be performed such that first transmit signals in a first band having a first center frequency and subsequently transmit signals in a second band having a second center frequency. Alternatively, different subsets of an arrangement of ultrasound elements may transmit at different bands of frequencies. A band of frequencies may consist of only one frequency or have multiple frequencies. See Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 5, Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
Rothberg further teaches a method, further comprising:
receiving, at the ultrasound transducer, echoes from a region of interest (ROI) following transmission of the acoustic beam to the ROI (Paragraph 0480 teaches that target is imaged and displayed as 3D images. Paragraph 0117 teaches that the reflected ultrasound is received);
generating a 2D, 3D, or 4D B-mode image, a Doppler image, a color flow image, or a contrast agent enhanced image from the received echoes (Paragraph 0480 teaches that target is imaged and displayed as 3D images); and
displaying the 2D, 3D, or 4D B-mode image, the Doppler image, the color flow image, or the contrast agent enhanced image on a display device (Paragraph 0480 teaches that target is imaged and displayed as 3D images).
Regarding claim 6, Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
Rothberg further teaches a method, wherein the configuration of the ultrasound transducer includes a frequency of the ultrasound transducer, a number of transducer elements comprising the plurality of transducer elements, a dimension of each transducer element, and a coordinate of each transducer element along an axis of the ultrasound transducer (Paragraphs 0108-09 teaches that control of the operational frequency. Paragraphs 0395-97 teaches the control of ultrasound imaging subarrays and the dimensions. Paragraphs 0123-24 teaches the angle of emission for the imaging ultrasound by the elements).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561) in view of Kamiyama (PGPUB No. US 2012/0078105).
Regarding claim 2, Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
While Rothberg teaches input of imaging parameters (Paragraph 0180), Rothberg is silent regarding a method, wherein the target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam is defined by a user.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound beamforming and transmission, Kamiyama teaches a method, wherein the target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam is defined by a user (Paragraph 0043 teaches that the beam profile mode and the sound pressure can be input via the input device. Paragraph 0028 teaches that the operator uses the input device. Figs. 1, 6-8, and 12).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rothberg with Kamiyama’s teaching of inputting the axial pressure information. This modified method would allow the user to generate an image (beam profile image) regarding an actual sound field and enable direct visual recognition of, for example, the shape and focal position of a sound field formed in ultrasonic wave transmission/reception (Paragraph 0008 of Kamiyama). Furthermore, the modification allows for the beam entry to the subject to be visually recognized rapidly and easily by real-time display, so that the improvement can be recognized at a glance (Paragraph 0067 of Kamiyama).
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561) in view of Kawagishi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2002/0022780).
Regarding claim 3, modified Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Rothberg is silent regarding a method, wherein the target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam is defined based on an axial beam length and an axial beam center, and wherein the target axial pressure profile includes a constant pressure along an entirety of the axial beam length.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding beamforming, Kawagishi teaches a method, wherein the target axial pressure profile for the acoustic beam is defined based on an axial beam length and an axial beam center, and wherein the target axial pressure profile includes a constant pressure along an entirety of the axial beam length (Paragraphs 0072-73 teach the control and defining of the beam according to the focus and depth of the beam. Paragraph 0019 teaches that the transmission is controlled according to a transmission sound pressure. The transmission condition can set the sound pressure to be uniform or set the sound pressure in a in a virtual face vertical to the scanning line to be uniform).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rothberg with Kawagishi’s teaching of the control of the transmission beam. This modified method would allow the user to improve image quality of the boundary of organs and contrast ratio are improved (Paragraph 0006 of Kawagishi). Furthermore, the modification allows for setting optimal transmission conditions for such each scanning line, achieving a uniform image quality over an image, and providing effective information for analysis on an application site (Paragraph 0002 of Kawagishi).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rothberg teaches the method in claim 3, as discussed above.
Rothberg further teaches a method, further comprising:
receiving, at the ultrasound transducer, echoes from the ROI following transmission of the acoustic beam (Paragraph 0480 teaches that target is imaged and displayed as 3D images. Paragraph 0117 teaches that the reflected ultrasound is received);
generating two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D) elastography information from the received echoes (Paragraph 0437 teaches imaging via elastography for volumetric image data. Paragraph 0480 teaches that target is imaged and displayed as 3D images); and
displaying the 2D or 3D elastography information on a display device (Paragraph 0480 teaches that target is imaged and displayed as 3D images).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561) in view of Sumi (PGPUB No. US 2011/0172538).
Regarding claim 7, Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Rothberg is silent regarding a method, wherein the transmit delay function and the transmit apodization function are further determined based on a speed of sound and/or an attenuation of a material through which the acoustic beam is to propagate.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound beamforming and transmission, Sumi teaches a method, wherein the transmit delay function and the transmit apodization function are further determined based on a speed of sound and/or an attenuation of a material through which the acoustic beam is to propagate (Paragraph 0129 teaches the attenuation of the propagating sound is corrected by weighting where the beamforming parameter of apodization is adjusted. Furthermore, the beamforming can be controlled on the basis of delay).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rothberg with Sumi’s teaching of control of delay and apodization in consideration with attenuation. This modified method would allow the user to perform tracking of target tissue motion and increase safety, reliability and efficiency of various treatments (Paragraph 0004 of Sumi). Furthermore, the modification allows for accurate real-time measurements (Abstract of Sumi).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561) in view of Chiao et al. (PGPUB No. US 2002/0133074).
Regarding claim 8, Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Rothberg is silent regarding a method, wherein a respective electrical signal is sent to each transducer element, and each respective electrical signal is delayed by a respective delay value based on the transmit delay function and has an amplitude defined by a respective apodization value based on the transmit apodization function.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound beamforming and transmission, Chiao teaches a method, wherein a respective electrical signal is sent to each transducer element, and each respective electrical signal is delayed by a respective delay value based on the transmit delay function and has an amplitude defined by a respective apodization value based on the transmit apodization function (Paragraphs 0027-28 teach that the transmission is done according to time delays and the apodization where the amplitudes of each transmit pulse is controlled according to the apodization weightings).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rothberg with Chiao’s teaching of the control of each transducer with delay and apodization. This modified method would allow the user to direct and focus the transmit beam (Paragraph 0027 of Chiao). Furthermore, the modification improves image quality (Paragraphs 0009-10 of Chiao).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561) in view of Chiao et al. (PGPUB No. US 2002/0133074) further in view of Duncan (PGPUB No. US 2016/0349367).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rothberg teaches the method in claim 8, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Rothberg and Chiao is silent regarding a method, wherein controlling the ultrasound transducer to transmit the acoustic beam by sending electrical signals to the plurality of transducer elements based on the transmit delay function and the transmit apodization function comprises encoding the transmit apodization function into the transmit delay function to form an encoded delay function, and controlling the ultrasound transducer to transmit the acoustic beam by sending a respective electrical signal to each transducer element that is delayed by a respective delay value based on the encoded delay function.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound beamforming and transmission, Duncan teaches a method, wherein controlling the ultrasound transducer to transmit the acoustic beam by sending electrical signals to the plurality of transducer elements based on the transmit delay function and the transmit apodization function comprises encoding the transmit apodization function into the transmit delay function to form an encoded delay function, and controlling the ultrasound transducer to transmit the acoustic beam by sending a respective electrical signal to each transducer element that is delayed by a respective delay value based on the encoded delay function (Paragraph 0016 teaches the encoding of the apodization and the delay profiles. Paragraphs 0033-38 teaches the complex apodization is encoded and repeated multiple times. The delay provide is used in consideration with the delay sum. See Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Rothberg and Chiao with Duncan’s teaching of the control of the ultrasound transmission in consideration of the encoding of apodization and delay. This modified method would allow the user to increase the amount of information that is transferred (Abstract of Duncan). Furthermore, the modification reduces the data bandwidth while allowing reconstruction of the original channel data (Abstract of Duncan).
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2013/0116561) in view of Recami et al. (PGPUB No. US 2011/0100880).
Regarding claim 27, modified Rothberg teaches the method in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Rothberg is silent regarding a method, wherein each non-diffracting acoustic beam component of the multiplexed non-diffracting acoustic beam components comprises a 0th order Bessel beam having a wavenumber different than wavenumbers of remaining non-diffracting acoustic beam components, and the multiplexed non-diffracting acoustic beam components are multiplexed using a different weight for each non-diffracting acoustic beam component.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding beamforming, Recami teaches a method, wherein each non-diffracting acoustic beam component of the multiplexed non-diffracting acoustic beam components comprises a 0th order Bessel beam having a wavenumber different than wavenumbers of remaining non-diffracting acoustic beam components, and the multiplexed non-diffracting acoustic beam components are multiplexed using a different weight for each non-diffracting acoustic beam component (Paragraphs 0108-16 teach the assessment of Bessel beams with the correct longitudinal wavenumber. The equations provide the summation of the multiple values according to the number n that includes the wavenumber. Paragraph 0133 teaches the weighting according to the transfer function. Paragraph 162 teaches the use of a zero order Bessel beam transmission. Paragraph 0048 teaches the use of zero order functions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Rothberg with Recami’s teaching of the 0 order Bessel beam. This modified method would allow the user to improve thermal therapies for diagnostics and treatment (Paragraph 0176 of Recami). Furthermore, the modification accurate 3D image generation (Paragraph 0173 of Recami).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 21-26 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kim et al. (US Patent No. 10,106,397): Teaches ultrasonic beamforming according to a propagation axis.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 “The term beamforming refers to a method of directing a wireless signal towards a specific receiving device, whereas the alternative would be allowing the signal to spread in all directions from a transmitter the way it naturally would.” (Link: https://jemengineering.com/blog-what-is-beamforming/)
2 “Ultrasound is interpreted as pressure and time with the following properties: – Frequency, Period, or Wavelength – Amplitude, Sound Pressure, or Intensity – Speed of Sound – Direction” (Link: https://www.ti.com/content/dam/videos/external-videos/en-us/7/3816841626001/6214448537001.mp4/subassets/physics_of_ultrasound_0.pdf)
3 Link: https://www.techniconacoustics.com/blog/what-is-sound-attenuation/
4 Link: https://www.techniconacoustics.com/blog/what-is-sound-attenuation/
Prosecution Insights