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 .
This listing of claims will replace all prior versions and listings of claims in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-19 and 22-23 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 recites the limitation "the first device". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Previously in the claim, there is recitation of “a first wave emitter” and/ or a “receiver device”, so it is unclear whether the “first device” corresponds to a device that is either a “wave emitter”, “receiver” or both. Therefore claim 1 is unclear and thus indefinite. The limitation “the first device” is interpreted to refer to a device that is capable of both wave emission and reception.
Regarding claim 4, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 17, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claim 22, the claim is rejected for the same reasons as applied in the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Regarding claims 2-19 and 23, the claims are further rejected due to their respective dependency upon a rejected base claim.
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 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
Regarding claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a computer program which falls under “software per se”. See MPEP 2106.03.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed towards a computer readable medium, that does not indicate whether or not is transitory, which falls under “signals per se”. See MPEP 2106.03.
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.
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, and 18-23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Constans et al. (WO 2021219402 A1, “Constans”. For all text citations, refer to attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Constans discloses a method for driving a first wave emitter and/or receiver device, said method comprising:
- driving the first device throughout channels established via electrical links (Fig.1 pg. 4, electronic control circuit (120) connected to the transducers (103) of the matrix comprises for each sub-matrix (105): a set of transmission-reception circuits (122) dedicated specifically to the transducers (103) of the sub matrix (105), and a configurable routing circuit (125) dedicated specifically to the transducers (103)of the sub matrix (105) which connect the transducers (103) of the sub matrix (105) to the transmission-reception circuits (122));
wherein at least two of said channels are permuted over time among the electrical links (Implicit, Fig. 1, pg. 5, each sub matrix (105) may include one or more transducers (103) that the routing circuit (125)may disconnect or connect to respective transmission-reception circuits (122))(selectively disconnecting or connecting is permutation with respect to time).
Regarding claim 2, Constans discloses the method according to claim 1. Constans further discloses
wherein the driving comprises: - establishing the channels by a drive device (Fig. 1, pg. 5, the (m/m)*(n/n) routing circuits (125) are individually controlled by electronic control circuit (120), which may be a single control circuit of the various routing circuits (125)).
Regarding claim 3, Constans discloses the method according to claim 2. Constans further discloses
wherein the driving further comprises: transmitting electrical signals throughout the channels (Fig. 2, Pg. 6, routing circuit (125) comprises four switches (SW1 to SW4), the first switch has a first conduction terminal for connection to an electrode of the transducer and another terminal for connection to an input or output terminal of the transmission-reception circuit (123i). in a first state, the terminals of SW1 are electrically isolated, and in another state, the terminals are electrically connected to one another).
Regarding claim 5, Constans discloses the method according to claim 1. Constans further discloses
wherein the method comprises at least one permutation over time of said at least two channels among the electrical links(Implicit, Fig. 1, pg. 5, each sub matrix (105) may include one or more transducers (103) that the routing circuit (125)may disconnect or connect to respective transmission-reception circuits (122))(selectively disconnecting or connecting is permutation with respect to time)(pg. 7, the electrical excitation signals applied by different transmission-reception circuits of a same sub matrix can be identical or differentiated. In addition, the excitation signals applied by the transmission-reception circuits of separate sub matrices can be identical or differentiated).
Regarding claim 6, Constans discloses the method according to claim 5. Constans further discloses
wherein the permutation comprises a plurality of permutations over time of the channels among the electrical links(Implicit, Fig. 1, pg. 5, each sub matrix (105) may include one or more transducers (103) that the routing circuit (125)may disconnect or connect to respective transmission-reception circuits (122))(selectively disconnecting or connecting is permutation with respect to time)(pg. 7, the electrical excitation signals applied by different transmission-reception circuits of a same sub matrix can be identical or differentiated. In addition, the excitation signals applied by the transmission-reception circuits of separate sub matrices can be identical or differentiated).
Regarding claim 7, Constans discloses the method according to claim 5. Constans further discloses
wherein the channels are permuted during the permutation so that one single electrical link is used at each time per channel(Implicit, Fig. 1, pg. 5, each sub matrix (105) may include one or more transducers (103) that the routing circuit (125)may disconnect or connect to respective transmission-reception circuits (122)) (Implicit, pg. 7, the electrical excitation signals applied by different transmission-reception circuits of a same sub matrix can be identical or differentiated. In addition, the excitation signals applied by the transmission-reception circuits of separate sub matrices can be identical or differentiated) (selectively disconnecting or connecting transducers includes the scenario in which only one electrical link is used in the event only one transducer is activated).
Regarding claim 18, Constans discloses the method according to claim 1. Constans further discloses
wherein said waves are acoustic waves (Fig. 1, pg. 4, transducers (103) may be CMUT type transducers, piezoelectric transducers, crystal transducers, or any other type of ultrasonic transducer)(ultrasonic transducers implicitly generate/receive acoustic waves above the range of human hearing).
Regarding claim 19, Constans discloses the method according to claim 1. Constans further discloses
wherein said method is applied to ultrasound medical imaging (pg. 3-4, embodiments described are compatible with the usual applications of ultrasonic imaging devices, which are chosen as a function of the application considered and the nature of the body to be analyzed. Various treatments applied to the electrical signals supplied by the ultrasonic transducers are compatible with the treatments used in ultrasound imaging .
Regarding claim 20, the claim is a computer program claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, the claim is a CRM claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 22, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 23, Constans discloses the system comprising the control system according to claim 22. Constance further discloses
and a second device driven by said control device(Implicit, Fig.1 pg. 4, electronic control circuit (120) connected to the transducers (103) of the matrix comprises for each sub-matrix (105): a set of transmission-reception circuits (122) dedicated specifically to the transducers (103) of the sub matrix (105), and a configurable routing circuit (125) dedicated specifically to the transducers (103)of the sub matrix (105) which connect the transducers (103) of the sub matrix (105) to the transmission-reception circuits (122))(each sub-matrix acts as a separate respective device).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4, 8, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constans in view of Oikawa (JP 2013111374 A, “Oikawa”. For all text citations refer to attached machine translation).
Regarding claim 4, Constans discloses the method according to claim 1. Constans fails to disclose
wherein said channels are analog channels for the transmission and/or reception of electrical signals between a control device and the first device.
Oikawa teaches
wherein said channels are analog channels for the transmission and/or reception of electrical signals between a control device and the first device (pg. 12, receiving means includes an amplifier that amplifies the ultrasonic echo signal and an analog to digital converter that converts it into a digital signal).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Constans, to include the teachings of Oikawa, in order to yield an ultrasonic wave generation and reception method in which received ultrasonic reflections are converted from analog signals to digital signals, enabling further processing to be performed on the received data to support applications such as medical ultrasonic diagnostic imaging through the ability to visualize imaging targets. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 8, Constans discloses the method according to claim 5. Cosntans fails to teach
wherein the permutation is carried out according to a predetermined sequence over time.
Oikawa teaches
wherein the permutation is carried out according to a predetermined sequence over time (pg. 7, output from each pulsar becomes a transmission channel, forming M transmission channels in total. Each transmission channel is connected to a plurality of transducer channels via a switch circuit. By sequentially switching the connection of the switches, scanning of the ultrasonic beam is performed).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Constans, to include the teachings of Oikawa, in order to yield an ultrasonic wave generation and reception method in which transducer elements are sequentially activated and deactivated, enabling the performance of sector scanning by matching the apodization curve to the transmission aperture, thus increasing resulting image quality. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Regarding claim 17, Constans discloses the method according to claim 1. Constans fails to disclose
wherein the driving comprises: - sending groups of electrical signals to the first device throughout the channels, each group corresponding to a shot configured to cause the emission of a wave by the first device;
wherein said at least two channels are permuted every X shots among the electrical links, X being an integer greater than or equal to 2.
Oikawa teaches
wherein the driving comprises: - sending groups of electrical signals to the first device throughout the channels, each group corresponding to a shot configured to cause the emission of a wave by the first device (Fig. 3, pg. 7, in fig. 3, horizontal axis indicates the number of transmission channels in the transmission aperture, and corresponds to the four permutations of the transmission channels corresponding to (i) to (iv). Vertical axis corresponds to magnitude of the transmitted ultrasonic signals from individual transducer elements in the transmission aperture);
wherein said at least two channels are permuted every X shots among the electrical links, X being an integer greater than or equal to 2(Fig. 3, pg. 7, in fig. 3, horizontal axis indicates the number of transmission channels in the transmission aperture, and corresponds to the four permutations of the transmission channels corresponding to (i) to (iv). Vertical axis corresponds to magnitude of the transmitted ultrasonic signals from individual transducer elements in the transmission aperture)(Fig. 3 illustrates the channels are permuted after the firing of 6 shots).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Constans, to include the teachings of Oikawa, in order to yield an ultrasonic wave generation and reception method in which the transmission aperture is matched to the desired apodization curve, so as to control the amplitude of transmitted waveforms, enabling the suppression of side or grating lobes that could impact the resulting image quality of the ultrasonic images. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Constans in view of Garlepp et al. (US 20170326593 A1, “Garlepp”).
Regarding claim 9, Constans discloses the method according to claim 5. Constans fails to disclose
wherein the permutation is carried out according to a random sequence over time.
Garlepp teaches
wherein the permutation is carried out according to a random sequence over time([0096] an activation sequence may be defined as left to right for a row of ultrasonic transducers, then moving down one row when the end of a row is reached, and continuing to proceed in this manner until a desired number of pixels are sensed. In another example, the activation sequence may be defined as top to bottom for a column, and moving to another column once enough pixels have been sensed for a column. It should be appreciated that any activation sequence may be defined without limitation, including a random activation sequence).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Constans, to include the teachings of Garlepp, in order to yield an ultrasonic wave generation and reception method in which transducer elements are randomly activated and deactivated, enabling the reduction of noise from firings of adjacent transducer elements from previous activations, as well as the impact of side or grating lobes, improving the resolution of image generation. Making such a modification amounts to using a known technique to improve a similar method in the same way. See MPEP 2141.III KSR Rationale (C).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-16 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, as well as overcoming any relevant 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, Constans discloses the method according to claim 5. Constans fails to disclose
wherein the electrical links are interposed between a first multiplexer and a second multiplexer, each permutation being caused by a change in routing by the first and second multiplexers of the channels among the electrical links.
Stergiopoulos (WO 2020118424 A1, “Stergiopoulos”) teaches
wherein Stergiopoulos may teach the use of multiple multiplexers, however there is no teaching that the electrical links are interposed between a first and second multiplexer, as required by the claim).
Yao et al. (US 20090099454 A1, “Yao”)
wherein the electrical links are interposed between a first multiplexer and a second multiplexer, each permutation being caused by a change in routing by the first and second multiplexers of the channels among the electrical links ([0027], rendering a three-dimensional image by disposing a channel signal multiplexer between the channel beam former and the transducer elements for multiplexing the control signals generated from the channel beam former to the transducer elements connecting and applying a second-dimension multiplexer for switching and summing measurement signals generated by the multiplexer disposed along the first dimension for generating measurement signals for rendering a three-dimensional image)( (Yao may teach the use of multiple multiplexers, however there is no teaching that the electrical links are interposed between a first and second multiplexer, as required by the claim. No other identified prior art teaches the required limitation regarding the interposition of an electrical link between a first and second multiplexer, either wholly or in part, with sufficient motivation to combine) .
Regarding claim 11, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim that is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 12, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim that is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 13, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim that is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 14, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim that is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim that is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 16, the claim is indicated as containing allowable subject matter due to its respective dependence upon a claim that is indicated as containing allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Yao et al. (US 20090099454 A1) which discloses a system and method for carrying out medical ultrasound imaging with ultrasound transducers
Stergiopoulos (WO 2020118424 A1) which discloses systems and methods for multidimensional ultrasound transducer array imaging
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645
