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 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.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 16-17, 19, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Provost (WO 2023/245290 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Provost teaches an acoustic imaging device for subwavelength imaging of an imaged object within a set of scattering elements with subwavelength dimension and movably positioned around the imaged object, the device comprising:
at least one acoustic transducer capturing an acoustic image of the imaged object and scatterers at an acoustic wavelength [[abstract] system for ultrasound imaging comprising at least one ultrasonic transmitter configured to transmit at least one ultrasonic wave toward at least one target… ultrasonic wave backscattered … ultrasonic receiver … reconstruct at least one image; [0012] at least one strong scatterer is imaged with an ultrasound probe; [0062] microbubbles are clinically approved contrast agents used routinely in ultrasound imaging to improve the detection of vasculature], the acoustic transducer having a point spread function [[0056] appreciated that equation (8) substantially corresponds to the backprojected data divided by the amplitude of a Point Spread Function (PSF) in each pixel]; and
an image processor executing a stored program to [[0095] processing unit 602 may comprise, for example, any type of general-purpose microprocessor or microcontroller, a digital signal processing (DSP) processor, an integrated circuit, a field programmable gate array (FPGA), a reconfigurable processor]:
(a) acquire multiple acoustic images of the imaged object with the set of scattering elements in different unknown locations [[0050] interpolate … desirable for this to be done since in the context of a cloud of microbubbles the random position of scatterers cannot be controlled in a way in which they are in the center of the pixels to be reconstructed] in different images [[0088] in one embodiment, the calibration procedure performed at step 202 comprises using reference images 302 and associated signals 304 generated by imaging clouds of strong scatterers, for example microbubbles, with an ultrasound probe 610 to create a dictionary 306. During reconstruction 308, the dictionary 306 and the signals 31 0 output by the ergodic relay (and detected by the ultrasonic receiver) are used to generate reconstructed images 312]; and
(b) process the multiple acoustic images using the point spread function [[0055-0056] real time image reconstruction … point spread function in each pixel; [0089] to form images/volumes using such an ergodic relay 122, the direct matrix K was first built by experimentally acquiring codas (i.e., signals measured by the ergodic relay 122) associated with point-sources (e.g. a 20-um wire in a water tank) in each pixel to be reconstructed.] in a predefined assumption of sparsity of the imaged object to provide an acoustic image revealing subwavelength features of the imaged object smaller than the acoustic wavelength [[0063] By locating the centroids of sparse scatterers circulating in the vascular network, ULM allows to go beyond the limits of conventional ultrasound imaging fixed by diffraction, and to go down to a resolution of only a few microns, using microbubbles, or sono-activated nanodroplets; [0064] PSF of a microbubble … localize microbubbles centers with a subwavelength precision].
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Provot teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 1 and the method of claim 12 wherein the image processor executes the stored program to iteratively model the imaged object with subwavelength dimensions to match the model to the received multiple acoustic images [[0050] difference in position with respect to the center of a pixel can be taken into account using an interpolation term h(x), e.g., by using a phase shift term of, or by forming small pixels that are then used to interpolate to a regular grid. It is desirable for this to be done since, in the context of a cloud of microbubbles, the random position of scatterers cannot be controlled in a way in which they are in the center of the pixels to be reconstructed; [0055] L2 norm].
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Provost teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 1 and the method of claim 12 wherein the imaged object and set of scattering elements are surrounded by a liquid in which the scattering elements flow independently [[0062] Microbubbles are clinically approved contrast agents used routinely in ultrasound 320 imaging to improve the detection of vasculature … ultrasonic probe was submerged in a degassed, 12-liter water tank containing 1.08 x 107 definity microbubbles (Lantheus Medical Imaging, USA) and was aiming at an ultrasound absorber laying at the bottom of the water tank; [0068] multiple microbubbles flowing freely through water were used as the input data of an 380 encoder network of the calibration unit 108, the encoder network capturing frames and temporal information into latent feature layers. An expanding decoder network was then used to detect positions of the microbubbles].
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Provost teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 5 and the method of claim 16 further including microbubble scattering elements in the liquid [[0062] microbubbles].
Regarding claims 8 and 19, Provost teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 1 and claim 12 wherein the scatterers have an average cross-sectional dimension less than 1/5 of the acoustic wavelength [[0050] term "strong scatterer'' refers to an object having dimensions comparable to or smaller than the wavelength of the transmitted ultrasound waves.].
Regarding claim 11, Provost teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 1 wherein at least one acoustic transducer is an ultrasonic transducer [[0041] ultrasonic probes having fully populated transducer element arrays].
Regarding claim 21, Provost teaches the method of claim 12 wherein the location of the set of scattering elements is uncharacterized prior to processing each given acoustic image of the imaged object with the set of scattering elements to provide the acoustic image revealing subwavelength features [[0062] Microbubbles are clinically approved contrast agents used routinely in ultrasound 320 imaging to improve the detection of vasculature; [0068] multiple microbubbles flowing freely through water were used as the input data of an 380 encoder network of the calibration unit 108, the encoder network capturing frames and temporal information into latent feature layers. An expanding decoder network was then used to detect positions of the microbubbles].
Regarding claim 22, Provost teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 1 wherein the location of the set of scattering elements is uncharacterized prior to processing each given acoustic image of the imaged object with the set of scattering elements to provide the acoustic image revealing subwavelength features [[0062]; [0068]].
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 (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 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 3-4 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost (WO 2023/245290 A1) and Murray (US 2019/0234911 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 14, Provost does not explicitly teach and yet Murray teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 2 and the method of claim 13 wherein the processing employs a joint sparsity calculation using the point spread function as a parameter [[0017] ultrasound transducer may be configured to generate multiple photoacoustic responses of multiple photoacoustic signals generated by the absorption object in response to illumination with the different speckle patterns. The ultrasound transducer may have a PSF or a LSF. The processor may be configured to perform operations that include reconstructing an absorber distribution of the absorption object by exploiting joint sparsity of sound sources in the photoacoustic responses using the PSF or LSF of the ultrasound transducer].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the sparse processing as taught by Provost, with the exploitation of joint sparsity of sound sources in the plurality of photoacoustic responses as taught by Murray so that the object distribution may be reconstructed (Murray) [[abstract]].
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Provost does not explicitly teach and yet Murray teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 3 and the method of claim 14 wherein the processing back projects the acquired multiple acoustic images to an object plane of the imaged object before applying the joint sparsity calculation [[0017]].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to implement the sparse processing as taught by Provost, with the exploitation of joint sparsity of sound sources in the plurality of photoacoustic responses as taught by Murray so that the object distribution may be reconstructed (Murray) [[abstract]].
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost (WO 2023/245290 A1) and Ruland (2021, Ultrasound in Med. & Biol.).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Provost does not explicitly teach and yet Ruland teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 5 and the method of claim 16 further including composite materials scattering elements presenting concentric layers of material providing a resonance at the frequency of the acoustic wave from the transducer [[title] reference phantom for ultrasonic imaging of thin dynamic constructs; [pg. 2395, col. 2] moulds consisted of three concentric rings 3 mm in height, where the centre ring, 8 mm in inner diameter, contained the agarose hydrogel (Fig. 4a). The rings were cut out from an acrylic sheet using a laser engraver (No. PLS6MW, Universal Laser Systems, Scottsdale, AZ, USA). Moulds were encapsulated with film wrap, using Teflon tape to provide a tight fit between rings. Before the molten agarose PS mixture was poured into the mould, one side of the ring was closed with film wrap after inserting the middle ring; [pg. 2401, col. 2] a limitation of this approach is expected in biological constructs with stratified layers, such as thin layers developing a dense extracellular matrix. In those cases, the average sound speed may not represent the actual local sound speed. Different methodologies for the local estimation of sound speed have been proposed (Jakovljevic et al. 2018).; [pg. 2392, col. 2] the backscatter coefficient of the reference phantom, BSCR (1/sr¢cm), per depth as a function of frequency was determined with the equation].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the transducer as taught by Provost, with the tissue phantom made from concentric layers as taught by Ruland so that backscatter coefficients as a function of frequency from a tissue phantom may be used to calibrate an ultrasonic transducer (Ruland) [[pg. 2392, col. 2]].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Provost (WO 2023/245290 A1) and Nokolov (US 2015/0245812 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Provost does not explicitly teach and yet Nokolov teaches the acoustic imaging device of claim 1 wherein the at least one acoustic transducer provides multiple transducer elements providing an output acoustic wave directed at the imaged object and measuring phase and acoustic amplitude of a return acoustic wave at a variety of locations to generate the acoustic image [[0002] transducer elements of the transducer array to transmit an ultrasonic beam and receive echoes produced in response thereto, which are processed to generate an image(s) of the interior characteristics; [0010] transmitting, with a two-dimensional non-rectangular transducer array, an ultrasound signal into a field of view, receiving, with the two-dimensional non-rectangular transducer array, echoes produced in response to an interaction between the ultrasound signal].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to combine the transducer as taught by Provost, beamforming as taught by Nokolov so that an accurate image can be formed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 7, filed 1/9/2026, with respect to claims 9 and 20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of 10/22/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. (see below).
Generally, it appears that the Provost system uses scatterers embedded in an element termed an "ergodic relay" to encode a spatial location of ultrasonic signals with a temporal signature. The ergodic relay allows spatial discrimination (necessary for imaging) critical when both the ultrasonic transmitter 116 and ultrasonic receiver 124 have only a single transmitting or receiving element as described in paragraph [0078] such as normally would not allow spatial imaging. See generally paragraph [0015] with respect to a description of the operation of the ergodic relay. By converting spatial information to temporal information such single element transducers can function to provide spatial discrimination and imaging.
This ability to convert temporal shifts caused by the ergodic relay into spatial locations, necessary for imaging, requires that the scatterers in the ergodic relay be characterized by something termed a dictionary during a calibration process. This also requires that the scatterers of the ergodic relay be time-invariant between the time of calibration and the use of the dictionary during imaging.
These features are described generally a paragraph [0081] of Provost as follows:
In one embodiment, the ergodic relay 122 is linear and temporally shift-invariant, such that the temporal signature of the ergodic relay 122 for the ultrasonic wave paths can be calibrated by the calibration unit 108. The response of each input position of the ergodic relay 122 can indeed be recorded in advance during a calibration process (e.g., performed at the calibration unit 108, as described herein above) and the temporal signature of the ergodic relay 122 can be established.
Using the calibrated responses (i.e. the dictionary of reception signals) determined by the calibration unit 108, the reconstruction unit 112 is configured to analyze the encoded signals (i.e. ultrasonic signals encoded with a temporal signature due to each signal's internal path within the ergodic relay 122) output by the ergodic relay 122 (and received at the ultrasonic receiver 124) to determine their input locations. The reconstruction unit 112 is configured to mathematically decode the encoded signals to reconstruct an image/volume of the target 118, using equation (8) above.
Claims 1 and 12
It is believed that Provost can be distinguished from the present invention because the present invention operates with scatters movably positioned and in different unknown locations in different images. By its nature, Provost requires that the scatters be in fixed, known locations characterized by the dictionary that appears to be unique to a given ergodic relay and its particular scatterer configuration. If the scatters moved after the calibration process, the calibration would no longer be effective and there would be no way to determine how scatter spatial location was encoded into temporal variations using the dictionary. Further the process of calibration means that the location of the scatters is no longer unknown (the known dictionary is functionally dependent on the scatterer location).
For this reason, it is believed that claims land 12 may be properly distinguished from Provost and allowance requested.
MPEP 2111.02 Effect of Preamble [R-07.2022] explains that the determination of whether a preamble limits a claim is made on a case-by-case basis in light of the facts in each case; there is no litmus test defining when a preamble limits the scope of a claim. Catalina Mktg. Int’l v. Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808, 62 USPQ2d 1781, 1785 (Fed. Cir. 2002). See id. at 808-10, 62 USPQ2d at 1784-86 for a discussion of guideposts that have emerged from various decisions exploring the preamble’s effect on claim scope, as well as a hypothetical example illustrating these principles.
Firstly, the scattering elements being movably positioned is not explicitly recited in the claim body and therefore cannot be the reason that the claims overcome the prior art of record. However, to the argument’s point, calibrating image processing does not mean that the position of microbubbles in subsequent imagings is somehow now known beforehand prior to measurement.
Claim 5 and 16 have been amended to emphasize the ability of the scatterers to float freely. Support for this amendment is found, for example, in paragraph [0028] of the present application describing the scatterers as microbubbles suspended in blood such as would exhibit this property.
Additionally, Provost teaches multiple microbubbles flowing freely through water were used as the input data of an 380 encoder network of the calibration unit 108, the encoder network capturing frames and temporal information into latent feature layers. An expanding decoder network was then used to detect positions of the microbubbles [[0068]]. Provost finally explains that microbubbles are clinically approved contrast agents used routinely in ultrasound 320 imaging to improve the detection of vasculature [[0062]]. These situations exactly resemble the limitations of scattering elements in different unknown locations and scattering elements are surrounded by a liquid in which the scattering elements flow independently.
New claims 21 and 22 have been provided offering an alternative definition of the quality of being of unknown location, these claims requiring that "the location of the set of scattering elements is uncharacterized prior to processing each given acoustic image of the imaged object with the set of scattering elements to provide the acoustic image revealing subwavelength features." Support for this limitation is found, for example, at paragraph [0006] noting that the scatterers are "blind" having changing, unknown position implicitly requiring that the processing cannot rely on knowledge about the position. This limitation is also supported in context from the application's description of the processing which works with such "blind scatters."
The Examiner is generally familiar with blind sound separation from acoustic sound source localization techniques. However, the claim does not explicitly recite blind identification of scatterers and furthermore merely recites the context but not the solution to identification. Microbubbles being used routinely as contrast agents in ultrasound imaging to improve the detection of vasculature [[0062]] similarly reads on this situation.
The ability to work with unknown scatters greatly increases the utility of the present invention, for example, in biomedical imaging as emphasized in the very first paragraph of the Summary Of Invention (paragraph [0006]) and represents a substantial improvement over Proust which proposes that the structure of the ergodic relay be inserted next to the target in the path of the ultrasonic signal per Fig. 1c.
The Examiner correctly cites paragraph [0050] of Provost as indicating that the scatterer locations cannot be "controlled" to line up with the center of the grid, but this does not mean that their positions are "unknown" because they are subject to measurement and characterization by the dictionaries before they are used to process images even if their initial locations cannot be controlled.
Provost also teaches that microbubbles are clinically approved contrast agents used routinely in ultrasound 320 imaging to improve the detection of vasculature [[0062]] and that multiple microbubbles flowing freely through water were used as the input data of an 380 encoder network of the calibration unit 108, the encoder network capturing frames and temporal information into latent feature layers. An expanding decoder network was then used to detect positions of the microbubbles [[0068]].
It is also believed that Provost can be distinguished from the present invention in a second manner insofar that Provost does not appear to combine (process) multiple acoustic images with different scatterer locations into a single high-resolution acoustic image. As the Examiner correctly points out, Provost uses multiple acoustic images to form multiple acoustic images, not to form a single high resolution image. Further as most clearly seen in Fig. 2 of Provost, should multiple images be acquired at process block 204, they appear to use the same dictionary previously determined at process block 202 and thus implicitly do not use images with different scatterer positions that require different dictionaries.
In light of these amendments and remarks, it is believed that claims 1-20 and new claims 21 and 22 are now in condition for allowance and allowance is respectfully requested.
Provost explains that the reconstruction unit 112 is configured to perform operations to reconstruct images/volumes (i.e., plural) using the calibration codas (e.g., received from the calibration unit 108 or retrieved from storage) and the data in the real time acoustic signals received from the ultrasound imaging unit 104 [[0072]]. Nevertheless there does not appear to be a limitation which recites combining multiple acoustic images, and no limitation pertaining to a high resolution image.
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 JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7339. The examiner can normally be reached M - F 9am-5pm.
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, Isam Alsomiri can be reached at 571-272-6970. 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.
/JONATHAN D ARMSTRONG/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645