DETAILED ACTION
Remarks
This office action is issued in response to communication filed on 3/2/2026 . Claims 21-40 are pending in this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 3/2/26 with respect to rejection of claims under 35 USC 103 have been considered and are not persuasive. The examiner respectfully traverses applicant’s arguments.
Applicant argues: “Yang I [0157] and Fig. 7 disclose a gain setup window for adjusting "gain entirely or partially." The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Yang establishing that this "gain" constitutes TGC as that term is used in claim 21, as opposed to overall or master gain. These are technically distinct parameters in the field of ultrasound imaging: TGC is a depth-dependent compensation curve, while overall gain is a scalar amplification applied uniformly across the image. Because Yang's "preset gain" has not been shown to correspond to the "TGC setting" recitations of claim 21, Yang cannot supply those recitations.”(Applicant’s argument at page 9)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Yang in par [00114] expressly indicates that the gain setup window includes time gain compensation (TCG) and lateral gain compensation (LGC). Yang Fig.7 and [0148] teaches the displaying the list 710 of one or more preset gains and par [0157] teaches selecting and displaying a preset gain corresponding to the selection. The gain setup window allows user to adjust gain entirely or partially. Yang Fig.7 clearly shows the list 710 is “TGC preset”. Accordingly, Yang preset gain is corresponding to the “TGC setting” of the one or more of the selected list 710.
Applicant argues: “The Examiner's stated motivation to combine Holmes and Yang is "to allow user to easily compensate the sensitivity of ultrasound image." (Office Action, p. 6.) This motivation is impermissibly conclusory. It does not articulate why a person of ordinary skill in the art would specifically modify Holmes's TSP system to incorporate TGC as a preset-associated parameter in the manner recited by claim 21, nor why doing so would produce a system in which, upon switching between presets, "the retained first imaging depth" is maintained while "a default TGC setting associated with the second preset, which is different from the first TGC setting", is applied. A stated motivation that could apply to virtually any combination of ultrasound imaging features does not satisfy the requirements of KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), which requires a specific, reasoned basis for combining references in the particular manner claimed. See also In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).”(Applicant’s arguments at page 10)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner clearly articulates the reason to combine Holmes and Yang to arrive at the claimed invention as “to allow user to easily compensate the sensitivity of ultrasound image". The examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to combine Holmes and Yang to arrive at the claimed invention comes from Yang paragraph [0007].
Applicant argues: “For this recitation, the Examiner again cites Holmes's T [0025], which is the identical paragraph cited for the retention and preset-switching recitations. (Office Action, p. 4.) Holmes's I [0025], however, describes only a forward-looking, single-transition save mechanism triggered when a user elects to maintain settings upon a TSP mode change. The Examiner has not identified, nor does Holmes disclose, any mechanism by which the system stores and subsequently recalls "the first TGC setting" on a preset-specific basis such that it is restored when the first preset is later re-selected. The same citation being applied to multiple distinct recitations without any additional analysis does not establish that Holmes teaches each of those recitations. Yang likewise provides no teaching directed to this recitation. The Examiner cites Yang only for "selecting and displaying a preset gain corresponding to the selection" and gain adjustment functionality. (Office Action, p. 6.) Yang discloses nothing about storing and recalling a user-established "TGC setting" upon re-selection of a prior preset across multiple intervening preset transitions. Because neither Holmes nor Yang, alone or in combination, teaches this recitation, claim 21 is independently patentable on this basis.” (Applicant arguments at page 10-11)
The examiner respectfully disagrees because one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The examiner relies on Yang for disclosing the feature of TGC setting, not Holmes and similarly, relies on Holmes, not Yang, disclosing the saving and recalling feature. Accordingly, the combination of Holmes and Yang teaches every limitation of claim 21.
Applicant argues: “The non-functional descriptive material doctrine applies only where the claimed subject matter has no functional relationship to the underlying structure or process. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1381, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Here, each of the dependent claims 24-31 recites specific preset identifiers that correspond to distinct sets of imaging parameter values including, per claim 22, values that "control transmit, analog processing, digital pre-processing and beamforming, coherent post-processing, and incoherent post-processing". For example, claim 25 recites "the first preset includes a harmonics preset and the second preset includes a fundamentals preset". These are not arbitrary labels - they identify presets built around different underlying imaging modes that employ different transmit frequencies, processing chains, and parameter profiles. Similarly, the preset combinations in claims 26-30 (e.g., "an abdomen preset, an abdomen deep preset, and an aorta and gallbladder preset"; "a lung artifacts preset, a lung consolidation preset, and a lung tissue preset") correspond to clinically and technically distinct imaging configurations. Because these identifiers have a functional relationship to the parameter sets they represent and to the imaging operations controlled by those parameter sets, they are not non-functional descriptive material and must be given patentable weight.” (Applicant’s arguments at page 11-12)
The examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 25 depends on claim 21, NOT claim 22 and therefore, values that applicant asserts that "control transmit, analog processing, digital pre-processing and beamforming, coherent post-processing, and incoherent post-processing" are not values for the “harmonics preset and a fundamentals preset” of claim 25 or "an abdomen preset, an abdomen deep preset, and an aorta and gallbladder preset"; "a lung artifacts preset, a lung consolidation preset, and a lung tissue preset" of claims 26-30. Claims 26-30 which depend on claim 1 simple further recite the plurality of names of the preset which is simply non-functional descriptive materials and therefore do not have patentable weight.
Applicant argues: “Claim 33 recites "a subset of the plurality of user-selectable presets in the preset menu are not in preset families". The Examiner cites Hu Fig. 5 as showing "local presets 510 are not in server preset 540." (Office Action, p. 14.) Hu's local/server preset distinction, however, is a categorization based on the administrative origin or distribution scope of presets, e.g., locally- stored settings versus institutionally-distributed settings. This is not the same as "a subset of the plurality of user-selectable presets in the preset menu" that are outside of "preset families" as that term is used in claim 21, which recites that a "preset family" is a grouping used for cycling through related presets via the preset menu. The Examiner has not identified any disclosure in Hu establishing that local presets exist outside of family groupings in the sense recited by claims 21 and 33, as opposed to simply being outside of a server-based distribution category. Without this correspondence, Hu does not supply the recitation of claim 33.”(Applicant’s argument at page 12)
The examiner respectfully disagrees because the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a "preset family" is a grouping used for cycling through related presets via the preset menu) 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). Hu Fig.5 shows local presets 510 are not in server preset 540. The local presets 510 is the claimed invention “subset” and the server preset 540 is the claimed invention “preset family” and therefore by displaying the local presets 510 separately from the server preset 540, Hu teaches the claim limitation of “wherein a subset of the plurality of user- selectable presets in the preset menu are not in preset families” of claim 33.
Applicant’s remaining arguments with respect to claims 39-40 are substantially encompassed in the argument above, therefore examiner responds with the same rationale as stated above.
For at least the foregoing reasons, the examiner maintains prior art rejections.
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 21-32 and 36-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes et al .( US Patent Application Publication 2021/0052254 A1, hereinafter “Holmes”) and further in view of Yang et al.( US Patent Application Publication 2014/0088428 A1, hereinafter “Yang”)
As to claim 21, Holmes teaches a method for controlling an ultrasound device using a smartphone or tablet, the method comprising: receiving a first user selection of a first preset from a preset family through a preset menu displayed by the smartphone or tablet, wherein the preset menu includes a plurality of user- selectable presets; (Holmes Fig.2 and par [0017] teaches plurality of Tissue specific presets which the user can select for a particular type of exam. When user selects OB exam from the menu, a command for an OB Gen exam is applied to a TSP settings controller in the ultrasound system)
Controlling ultrasound imaging operation based on the first preset, which includes controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using a default imaging depth and a default time-gain compensation (TGC) setting associated with the first preset; (Bold emphasis added. Holmes par [0017] teaches when user selects OB exam from the menu, a command for an OB Gen exam is applied to a TSP settings controller in the ultrasound system )
receiving a second user selection of a first imaging depth different from the default imaging depth and a first TGC setting different from the default TGC setting associated with the first preset; controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using the first imaging depth and the first TGC setting associated with the second user selection; (Holmes par [0022] teaches as the user is conducting an exam in a selected TSP mode of operation, user may increase or decrease the display depth or change other settings such as field of view, focal point)
retaining the first imaging depth received during the second user selection;(Holmes par [0025] teaches if the user has elected to maintain display and workflow settings when changing TSP modes, the TSP settings controller will issue a “Save” command to the display settings memory when a TSP mode is to be changed. The current display and workflow settings will thus be saved and continue in the new TSP mode)
receiving a third user selection of a second preset from the preset family through the preset menu displayed by the smartphone or tablet; (Holmes par [0018] teaches user selects OB Fetal Heart exam preset)
controlling ultrasound imaging operation based on the second preset, which includes controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using the retained first imaging depth and a default TGC setting associated with the second preset, which is different from the first TGC setting in the ultrasound imaging operation;( Holmes par [0018] teaches the tissue specific preset values are optimized for this slightly different and more specific exam. Holmes par [0025] teaches if the user has elected to maintain display and workflow settings when changing TSP modes, the TSP settings controller will issue a “Save” command to the display settings memory when a TSP mode is to be changed. The current display and workflow settings will thus be saved and continue in the new TSP mode)
receiving a fourth user selection of a second TGC setting different from the default TGC setting associated with the second preset and different from the first TGC setting; controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using the retained first imaging depth and the second TGC setting in the ultrasound imaging operation; (Holmes par [0018] teaches the tissue specific preset values are optimized for this slightly different and more specific exam)
receiving a fifth user selection of the first preset from the preset family through the preset menu displayed by the smartphone or tablet; and controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using the first preset, the retained first imaging depth, and the first TGC setting in the ultrasound imaging operation.(Holmes par [0017] teaches when user selects OB exam from the menu, a command for an OB Gen exam is applied to a TSP settings controller in the ultrasound system. Holmes par [0025] teaches if the user has elected to maintain display and workflow settings when changing TSP modes, the TSP settings controller will issue a “Save” command to the display settings memory when a TSP mode is to be changed. The current display and workflow settings will thus be saved and continue in the new TSP mode)
Holmes fails to expressly teach a default time-gain compensation (TGC) setting associated with the first preset; receiving a second user selection of a first TGC setting different from the default TGC setting associated with the first preset; receiving a fourth user selection of a second TGC setting different from the default TGC setting associated with the second preset and different from the first TGC setting.
However, in an analogous art directed toward ultrasound imaging , Yang teaches a default time-gain compensation (TGC) setting associated with the first preset; receiving a second user selection of a first TGC setting different from the default TGC setting associated with the first preset; receiving a fourth user selection of a second TGC setting different from the default TGC setting associated with the second preset and different from the first TGC setting.(Yang Fig.7 and par [0157] teaches selecting and displaying a preset gain corresponding to the selection. The gain setup window allows user to adjust gain entirely or partially)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Holmes and Yang to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to allow user to easily compensate the sensitivity of ultrasound image.(Yang par [0007])
As to claim 22, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the first preset and the second preset each include a different set of ultrasound imaging parameter values that control transmit, analog processing, digital pre-processing and beamforming, coherent post-processing, and incoherent post-processing. (Holmes par [0017] teaches TSP will cause system to operate with a low frame rate of display by control of the transmit controller and beamformer and a relatively high dynamic range of display. Holmes par [0018] teaches when user selects an OB fetal heart exam, the frame rate is increased. The dynamic range is decreased slightly and color is automatically turned on)
As to claim 23, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the preset family includes a plurality of presets optimized for imaging at least one of a same anatomy, a same anatomical region, or a same type of anatomy. (Holmes par [0017] teaches tissue specific presets (TSPs)
As to claim 24, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the first preset includes a standard preset and the second preset includes a deep preset. (Holmes par [0017] teaches OB general and OB fetal heart exam )
As to claim 25, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the first preset includes a harmonics preset and the second preset includes a fundamentals preset.( The examiner interprets the names of the presets are simply non-functional descriptive material . Holmes Fig.2 shows plurality of presets with different names or descriptions)
As to claim 26, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the preset family includes two or more of an abdomen preset, an abdomen deep preset, and an aorta and gallbladder preset. (The examiner interprets the names of the presets are simply non-functional descriptive material . Holmes Fig.2 shows plurality of presets with different names or descriptions)
As to claim 27, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the preset family includes two or more of a musculoskeletal (MSK) preset, an MSK soft tissue preset, and a small organ preset. (The examiner interprets the names of the presets are simply non-functional descriptive material . Holmes Fig.2 shows plurality of presets with different names or descriptions)
As to claim 28, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the preset family includes two or more of an obstetric first month and gynecological preset, and an obstetric second and third month preset. ( The examiner interprets the names of the presets are simply non-functional descriptive material . Holmes Fig.2 shows plurality of presets with different names or descriptions)
As to claim 29, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein the first preset includes a vascular access preset and the second preset includes a carotid preset. ( The examiner interprets the names of the presets are simply non-functional descriptive material . Holmes Fig.2 shows plurality of presets with different names or descriptions)
As to claim 30, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, consolidation preset, and a lung tissue preset. wherein the preset family includes two or more of a lung artifacts preset, a lung tissue preset.( The examiner interprets the names of the presets are simply non-functional descriptive material . Holmes Fig.2 shows plurality of presets with different names or descriptions)
As to claim 31, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein repeated selection of the preset menu cycles through presets within the preset family. (Holmes par [0017] teaches when user selects OB exam from the menu)
As to claim 32, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, wherein a number of presets in the preset family is smaller than a number of the plurality of user-selectable presets in the preset menu. (Holmes Fig.2 and par [0017] teaches plurality of Tissue specific presets which the user can select for a particular type of exam. Each specific preset is less than the total number of presets listed)
As to claim 36, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, further comprising: displaying the first preset and the second preset in the preset menu. (Holmes Fig.2 )
As to claim 37, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, further comprising: transmitting commands to the ultrasound device to configure the ultrasound device with parameter values of the first preset, when controlling the ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device. (Holmes par [0017] teaches when user selects OB exam from the menu, a command for an OB Gen exam is applied to a TSP settings controller in the ultrasound system)
As to claim 38, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, further comprising: saving the first TGC setting prior to or upon receiving the third user selection of the preset filter.(Holmes par [0024] teaches presenting the user at the outset of an exam with a choice of display and workflow settings to maintain or reset during the TSP mode changes )
As to claim 39, Holmes teaches a smartphone or tablet in operative communication with an ultrasound device (Holmes Fig.1 and par [0017] teaches touchscreen ), wherein the smartphone or tablet is configured to:
receive a first user selection of a first preset from a preset family through a preset menu displayed by the smartphone or tablet, wherein the preset menu includes a plurality of user- selectable presets; control ultrasound imaging operation based on the first preset, which includes controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using a first imaging depth and a first time-gain compensation (TGC) setting associated with the first preset (Holmes Fig.2 and par [0017] teaches plurality of Tissue specific presets which the user can select for a particular type of exam. When user selects OB exam from the menu, a command for an OB Gen exam is applied to a TSP settings controller in the ultrasound system);
retaining the first imaging depth associated with the first preset;(Holmes par [0025] teaches if the user has elected to maintain display and workflow settings when changing TSP modes, the TSP settings controller will issue a “Save” command to the display settings memory when a TSP mode is to be changed. The current display and workflow settings will thus be saved and continue in the new TSP mode)
receive a second user selection of a second preset from the preset family through the preset menu displayed by the smartphone or tablet ; and control ultrasound imaging operation based on the second preset, which includes controlling ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using the retained first imaging depth associated with the first preset and a second TGC setting associated with the second preset, which is different from the first TGC setting in the ultrasound imaging operation. (Holmes par [0018] teaches user selects OB Fetal Heart exam preset. Holmes par [0025] teaches if the user has elected to maintain display and workflow settings when changing TSP modes, the TSP settings controller will issue a “Save” command to the display settings memory when a TSP mode is to be changed. The current display and workflow settings will thus be saved and continue in the new TSP mode)
Holmes fails to expressly teach first time-gain compensation (TGC) setting associated with the first preset; a second TGC setting associated with the second preset, which is different from the first TGC setting in the ultrasound imaging operation.
However, in an analogous art directed toward ultrasound imaging , Yang teaches first time-gain compensation (TGC) setting associated with the first preset; a second TGC setting associated with the second preset, which is different from the first TGC setting in the ultrasound imaging operation. (Yang Fig.7 and par [0157] teaches selecting and displaying a preset gain corresponding to the selection. The gain setup window allows user to adjust gain entirely or partially)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teachings of Holmes and Yang to arrive at the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to allow user to easily compensate the sensitivity of ultrasound image.(Yang par [0007])
As to claim 40, Holmes and Yang teach the smartphone or tablet according to claim 39, wherein the processor is further configured to:
receive a third user selection of a third TGC setting different from the first TGC setting and the second TGC setting; and control ultrasound imaging operation of the ultrasound device and the smartphone or tablet using either the first imaging depth associated with the first preset or the second imaging depth associated with the second preset and the third TGC setting. (Yang Fig.7 and par [0157] teaches selecting and displaying a preset gain corresponding to the selection. The gain setup window allows user to adjust gain entirely or partially)
Claims 33-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes, Yang and further in view of Hu et al., (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0020442 A1, hereinafter “Hu”)
As to claim 33, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21 but fail to teach wherein a subset of the plurality of user- selectable presets in the preset menu are not in preset families.
However, Hu teaches wherein a subset of the plurality of user- selectable presets in the preset menu are not in preset families. (Hu Fig.5 shows local presets 510 are not in server preset 540)
Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Hu with Holmes and Yang to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide rapid dissemination of desirable settings for good image quality such as region-specific and/or specialty-specific settings.(Hu par [00007])
As to claim 34, Holmes , Yang and Hu teach the method according to claim 33, further comprising :hiding the preset menu after a selection of a preset in the subset. (Hu Fig.3A-3B show the image without preset menu)
As to claim 35, Holmes and Yang teach the method according to claim 21, but fail to teach further comprising: hiding a subset of available presets in the preset menu.
However, Hu teaches hiding a subset of available presets in the preset menu. (Hu par [0058] teaches presets only provided after they have been reviewed)
Therefore , it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to combine the teaching of Hu with Holmes and Yang to achieve the claimed invention. One would have been motivated to make such combination to provide rapid dissemination of desirable settings for good image quality such as region-specific and/or specialty-specific settings.(Hu par [00007])
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 HIEN DUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7335. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Viker Lamardo can be reached at 571-270-5871. 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.
/HIEN L DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2147
Prosecution Insights