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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 09/11/2025. Claims 1-15 are pending. Claims 1, 3, and 15 are amended. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments and 35 U.S.C. 103 sections below. Claim 13 is 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 (See Allowable Subject Matter section below).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to the objections to the drawings and specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objections to the drawings and specification in the non-final rejection of 03/11/2025 have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 12, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 3-8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Regarding claim 3, the examiner notes that this claim has been amended to recite: “wherein a width of the stripes is W; wherein a height h of the stripes is such that h < 0.25 H”. The examiner notes that H represents the height H of the sensor array in an elevation direction. Therefore, it is clear that the width of the stripes is W and the height of the stripes is less than H (i.e. the height of the sensor array). Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Regarding claims 4-8, due to their dependence on claim 3, these claims are subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the rejection of these claims has been withdrawn
Regarding claim 15, the examiner acknowledges that the claim has been amended to recite “the system processor”. This amendment corrects the antecedent basis issue identified in the non-final rejection of 03/11/2025.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 3-8 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) in the non-final rejection of 03/11/2025 has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 12-16, filed 09/11/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, the claim has been amended to recite: “wherein the one or more active windows are freely defined by the local processor without reference to any division of the sensor array into fixed hardware-defined subarrays”. The examiner recognizes that support for this amendment is present in the application as filed, at least from Page 6, Line 24 to Page 7, Line 4. See also the example of FIG. 4 as described from Page 14, Line 29 to Page 15, Line 5.
The applicant respectfully contends that this claim is allowable over Savord in view of Weber because neither reference considers a freely defined active window as recited. In this case, since Weber is relied upon only for the idea of not energizing transducer that aren’t in the active windows, the Applicant chooses to concentrate their arguments on Savord.
Specifically, the Applicant notes that the configuration of Savord is a 2D sensor array having hardware-defined subarrays (i.e. Savord: [Column 5, Lines 53-63] considers an array of 3000 elements divided into 120 subarrays, each having 5x5 sensor elements). The other configurations considered by Savord all share this feature of dividing up a large array of sensors into subarrays, while this division being permanently fixed in hardware once the apparatus is built.
So when an active window in Savord is moved (e.g., as considered in connection with the linear scan of FIG. 13 of Savord) what is being contemplated is picking which of the hardware-defined subarrays to energize as which times, as is evident from Savord’s description of that figure.
To expedite prosecution, it is noted that page 7 of the present office action includes the statement that providing phase shifts to elements within a subarray amounts to positioning an active window in an array. The Applicant respectfully disagrees, because such phase shifts provide beam steering/forming. Moving an active window requires energizing and de-energizing array elements appropriately, whether that is done freely as in the present invention, or subarray by subarray as in Savord.
FIG. 4 of the present application provides an example of what can be done with the current approach that is impossible with the fixed division into subarrays approach of Savord. In this example, 402a, 402b, 402c show three examples of possible active windows in array 104. Freely defined active windows as in this work can overlap (as windows 402a and 402b do in this example), but such overlap is impossible in approaches where each sensor element belongs to one (and only one) subarray, as in Savord.
The examiner respectfully disagrees with the Applicant’s assertion that Savord does not teach the limitation: “wherein the one or more active windows are freely defined by the local processor without reference to any division of the sensor array into fixed hardware-defined subarrays”. While Savord does feature a large array of sensors divided into subarrays which are phase shifted (i.e. the active aperture is actively moved through beam-steering), that does not mean that the location of the active aperture cannot be changed.
In fact, Savord discloses “wherein said array has a linear or curved linear geometry and wherein the active aperture is electronically moved along the length of the array” [Claim 22] and “However, the subarray processing techniques described above can be used for other transducer geometries, such as linear and curved linear arrays. A further embodiment of the invention, wherein a linear array 500 divided into subarrays 502, 504, 506, etc. is shown in FIG. 13. […] Each system channel is selectively connected to more than one subarray processor through multiplexer switches 510, 512, 514 etc. […] The multiplexer switches permit an active aperture to be electronically moved across the array to provide a linear scan format along the length of the array. […] The multiplexer switches may be integrated into the subarray processor integrated circuit. The power to subarray processors that are not selected may be turned off to save power” [Column 12, Lines 28-46].
Therefore, since the multiplexer switches permit an active aperture to be electronically moved across the array, the multiplexer switches freely define the one or more active windows without reference to any division of the sensor array into fixed hardware-defined subarrays.
Although, FIG. 4 of the present application provides an example of what can be done with the current approach, that the Applicant suggests is impossible with the fixed division into subarrays approach of Savord, the examiner respectfully notes that the claims as written to not specify that the freely defined active windows “can overlap”.
Therefore, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated above. The rejection of claim 1 has been updated to reflect the amended claim limitation as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claims 3-4 and 6, these claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki (US 2020/0046320). These claims are dependent on claim 1 therefore these claims are subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of these claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claim 5, this claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Ayter (JP 2004-041730). This claim is dependent on claim 1, therefore this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claim 7, this claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Wang (US 2021/0105305). This claim is dependent on claim 1, therefore this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claim 8, this claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Nynynen (US 2020/0205773). This claim is dependent on claim 1, therefore this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claim 9, this claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Thiele (US 2010/0168580). This claim is dependent on claim 1, therefore this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claim 10, this claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Boroczky (US 2018/0125446). This claim is dependent on claim 1, therefore this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Regarding claim 14, this claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Savord in view of Weber and Boctor (US 2015/0359512). This claim is dependent on claim 1, therefore this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Thus, the examiner respectfully maintains the rejection of this claim under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments section above and the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
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) 1-2, 11-12 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber”.
Regarding claim 1, Savord teaches “Apparatus comprising:” (“An ultrasound imaging system includes a two-dimensional array of ultrasound transducer elements that define multiple subarrays, a transmitter for transmitting ultrasound energy into a region of interest with transmit elements of the array, a subarray processor and a phase shift network associated with each of the subarrays, a primary beamformer and an image generating circuit” [Abstract]. The ultrasound imaging system represents an apparatus.);
“a sensor array including at least one 2D array of acoustic transducer elements” (See transducer array 14 in FIG. 2 and “The ultrasound imaging system includes a two-dimensional array of transducer elements that define a plurality of subarrays” [Column 2, Lines 29-31]; “In one example, transducer array 14 includes 3,000 elements grouped into 120 subarrays, each including 5x5=25 elements. Approximately half of the transducer elements are used to transmit ultrasound energy, and the others are used to receive ultrasound energy” [Column 5, Lines 53-57]. Therefore, the apparatus includes a sensor array including at least one 2D array of acoustic transducer elements.);
“a local processor disposed at the sensor array and configured to electronically define one or more active windows within the sensor array, wherein each of the one or more active windows includes a corresponding 2D subarray of acoustic transducer elements of the sensor array” (See subarray processor 60 in FIG. 2, [Column 5, Lines 53-57] above, and “Each subarray beamformer includes a sub-array processor 60 connected to the individual elements of the respective subarray and a phase shift network 62 connected to outputs of subarray 60” [Column 6, Lines 3-6]; “In a preferred embodiment of the invention, the transducer array 14 and subarray processors 60 are mounted within the transducer handle 102” [Column 6, Lines 50-53]. Therefore, since each subarray beamformer (i.e. 14) includes a sub-array processor 60 connected to the individual elements of the respective subarray, the apparatus includes a local processor (i.e. 60) disposed at the sensor array (i.e. 14) and configured to electronically define one or more active windows (i.e. sub-arrays of 25x25 elements) within the sensor array, wherein each of the one or more active windows includes a corresponding 2D subarray of acoustic transducer elements of the sensor array.);
“wherein the one or more active windows can be adjustably positioned within the sensor array by the local processor” (“In particular, each transmit and receive circuit in subarray processor 60 is provided with a phase shift value that differs from the phase shift value of its nearest neighbor in the y direction by the y phase shift increment and differs from its nearest neighbor in the x direction by the x phase shift increment” [Column 7, Lines 8-13]; “wherein said array has a linear or curved linear geometry and wherein the active aperture is electronically moved along the length of the array” [Claim 22]. In this case, the phase shift value causes the active window to be adjusted. Therefore, since each transmit and receive circuit in the subarray processor 60 is provided with a phase shift value, the one or more active windows can be adjustably positioned within the sensor array (i.e. 14) by the local processor (i.e. 60).);
“a system processor having a fixed number of beamforming channels, and disposed away from the sensor array, wherein the system processor is configured to provide 2D beamforming by individual control of each acoustic transducer element that is within an active window, and wherein the system processor is configured to tell the local processor where to position each of the one or more active windows” (See system controller 32 in FIG. 2, “The system controller 32 provides overall control of the system. The system controller 32 performs timing and control functions and typically includes a microprocessor and associated memory” [Column 5, Lines 21-24] and “System controller 32 supplies phase shift values to each of the subarray processors 60 for transmit beam steering and receive beam steering. The system controller 32 also supplies delay values to digital delay elements 86 for receive beam steering and dynamic focusing” [Column 6, Lines 38-42]. In this case, in order for the system controller 32 to supply control functions for transmit and receive beam steering, the system processor must have a fixed number of beamforming channels (i.e. corresponding to the number of channels in the subarray processors 60). As shown in FIG. 2, the system controller 32 is disposed away from the sensor array (i.e. transducer array 14). Furthermore, since the system controller supplies phase shift values to each of the subarray processors 60 for transmit and receive beam steering, the system processor is configured to provide 2D beamforming by individual control of each acoustic transducer element that is within an active window and is configured to tell the local processor (i.e. subarray processors 60) where to position each of the one or more active windows.);
“wherein the one or more active windows are freely defined by the local processor without reference to any division of the sensor array into fixed hardware-defined subarrays” (“wherein said array has a linear or curved linear geometry and wherein the active aperture is electronically moved along the length of the array” [Claim 22] and “However, the subarray processing techniques described above can be used for other transducer geometries, such as linear and curved linear arrays. A further embodiment of the invention, wherein a linear array 500 divided into subarrays 502, 504, 506, etc. is shown in FIG. 13. […] Each system channel is selectively connected to more than one subarray processor through multiplexer switches 510, 512, 514 etc. […] The multiplexer switches permit an active aperture to be electronically moved across the array to provide a linear scan format along the length of the array. […] The multiplexer switches may be integrated into the subarray processor integrated circuit. The power to subarray processors that are not selected may be turned off to save power” [Column 12, Lines 28-46].
Therefore, since the multiplexer switches permit an active aperture to be electronically moved across the array, the multiplexer switches freely define the one or more active windows without reference to any division of the sensor array into fixed hardware-defined subarrays.).
Savord does not teach “wherein only acoustic transducer elements within an active window are active for transmission and/or reception”.
Weber is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasound transducer probe which performs scanning in the azimuth dimension (i.e. horizontally) and in the elevation dimension (i.e. vertically) and includes a rectangular array of transducer elements (see [0095] and FIG. 1).
Weber teaches “wherein only acoustic transducer elements within an active window are active for transmission and/or reception” (See elements 44a, 44b and 44n in FIG. 2A and “[…] 3D volume data acquisition and focusing of beams using active transducers is described. A singular, rigid carrier structure constructed using scalar transducer elements arranged in the likeness of an array is disclosed. Signal transmission apertures and data gathering apertures are formed and used to electronically scan desired regions and electronically acquire 3D volumetric data; where coherent aperture combining (CAC) is used to combine the structural data from multiple data gathering apertures, thereby increasing the size of the effective data gathering apertures employed, and thereby increasing image resolution” [0066]; “Switching electronics 50 includes a signal generator 52, a control unit 54 and a switching network 56. Signal generator 52 produces a waveform having a characteristic ultrasound frequency that is directed to elements of transducer array 48 by switching network 56 in response to signals from control unit 54. Switching electronics 50 selectively energizes the elements of array 48 and selectively polls those elements to effectively divide the array, along at least one of two dimensions, into subapertures 44a, 44b, . . . 44n. As discussed above, each sub aperture 44a, 44b, . . . 44n transmits and receives a respective plurality of low-resolution ultrasound beams 46a1, 46a2, . . . 46ai, 46b1, 46b2, . . . 46bj, . . . 46n1, 46n2, . . . 46nk that span the volume 42 to be imaged” [0121].
In this case, since the switching electronics 50 selectively energizes the elements of array 48 (i.e. 44a, 44b and 44n) such that they transmit and receive respective plurality of low-resolution ultrasound beams, only acoustic transducer elements within an active window are active for transmission and/or reception.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord, such that only acoustic transducer elements within an active window are active for transmission and/or reception as disclosed in Weber in order to provide real-time 2D imaging performance at a reduced cost (See Weber: [0027]: Another object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus and method that would support the development of a very low-cost, 2D, real-time ultrasound imaging system requiring only a few (on the order of 8) channels.). By only activating acoustic transducer elements within an active window for transmission and reception of ultrasound, less acoustic transducer elements need to be activated, thereby preventing unnecessary power usage (i.e. to elements outside the active window). Modifying the apparatus of Savord such that only acoustic transducer elements within an active window are active for transmission and/or reception as disclosed in Weber would yield the predictable result of providing real-time 2D ultrasound imaging at a low-cost (i.e. since not all transducer elements need to be powered).
Regarding claim 2, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Savord further teaches "wherein each of the acoustic transducer elements within an active window is uniquely connected to a corresponding one of the beamforming channels in the system processor by the local processor” (See [Column 6, Lines 3-6] and [Column 5, Lines 21-24] and [Column 6, Lines 38-42] as discussed in claim 1 above and “wherein said array has a linear or curved linear geometry and wherein the active aperture is electronically moved along the length of the array” [Claim 22]. In order for the system controller 32 to provide the subarray processors 60 with phase shift values to control transmit and receive beam steering, the system processor 32 must include beamforming channels corresponding to the subarray processors 60. Thus, since each subarray beamformer includes a sub-array processor 60 (i.e. local processor) connected to the individual elements of the respective subarray (i.e. subarray 40, 46, and 50 in transducer array 14) (see [Column 6, Lines 3-6]) and the system controller 32 controls the system (see [Column 5, Lines 21-24]) by supplying phase shift values to each of the subarray processors 60 (i.e. the local processor) for transmit and receive beam steering (i.e. performed by individual elements of the subarrays 40, 46, and 50, respectively), each of the acoustic transducer elements within the active window is uniquely connected to a corresponding one of the beamforming channels in the system processor (i.e. system controller 32) by the local processor (i.e. subarray processors 60.).
Regarding claim 11, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Savord further teaches “wherein the sensor array includes three or more 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements disposed in a curved array in an azimuthal dimension” (See 14 in FIG. 2, [Column 5, Lines 53-57] as discussed in claim 1 above and “The transducer array 14 may have a sector scan geometry, a linear geometry, a curved linear geometry or any other suitable geometry” [Column 5, Lines 61-63] and “wherein said array has a linear or curved linear geometry and wherein the active aperture is electronically moved along the length of the array” [Claim 22]. As shown in FIG. 2, the transducer array 14 includes subarray 40, subarray 46 and subarray 50 each connected to subarray beamformers 42, 48 and 52, respectively. Therefore, the sensor array includes three or more 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements (i.e. subarrays 40, 46 and 50) disposed in a curved array in an azimuthal dimension (i.e. curved linear geometry).).
Regarding claim 12, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Weber further teaches “wherein each of the at least one 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements is included in a corresponding module, whereby the sensor array is modular” (“An ultrasound imaging transducer in a system in accordance with the present invention can be manufactured in a conformal form factor, and be used as a building block (i.e., a 2D transducer array module) in ultrasound blanket systems as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 5,666,953 and its progeny” [0042]. Therefore, each of the at least one 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements is included in a corresponding module (i.e. 2D transducer array module), whereby the sensor array is modular.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord, such that each of the at least one 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements is included in a corresponding module, whereby the sensor array is modular as disclosed in Weber in order to provide real-time 2D imaging performance at a reduced cost (See Weber: [0027]: Another object of the present invention is to provide an apparatus and method that would support the development of a very low-cost, 2D, real-time ultrasound imaging system requiring only a few (on the order of 8) channels.). Including 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements in a corresponding module is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to perform ultrasonic imaging with a reasonable expectation of success. Modifying the apparatus of Savord such that each of the at least one 2D arrays of acoustic transducer elements is included in a corresponding module, whereby the sensor array is modular as disclosed in Weber would yield the predictable result of providing real-time 2D ultrasound imaging at a low-cost (i.e. since not all transducer elements need to be powered).
Regarding claim 15, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Savord further teaches “wherein the local processor switches connections between the system controller and the sensor array to translate the one or more active windows in azimuthal and/or elevational directions” (See [Column 6, Lines 38-42] as discussed in claim 1 and “The phase shift networks within each subarray beamformer steer the subarray to receive along a desired scan line at a desired steering angle [Column 10, Lines 15-17]; “The multiplexer switches permit an active aperture to be electronically moved across the array to provide a linear scan format along the length of the array” [Column 12, Lines 39-41]. Therefore, since the system controller 32 (i.e. system processor supplies phase shift values to each of the subarray processors 60 (i.e. local processor) for transmit and receive beam steering and the active aperture can be electronically moved across the array, the local processor switches connections between the system [processor] and the sensor array to translate the one or more active windows in azimuthal and/or elevational directions.).
Claim(s) 3-4 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wodnicki et al. US 2020/0046320 A1 “Wodnicki”.
Regarding claim 3, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Weber further teaches "wherein the sensor array has a width W in an azimuthal direction and a height H in an elevation direction” (“FIG. 1 shows an ultrasound transducer probe where scanning occurs in both the azimuth dimension (i.e. horizontally) and in the elevation dimension (i.e. vertically). […] The transducer element 36 can be controlled to effect sequential scanning in azimuth and elevation as illustrated in FIG. 1; but nothing prevents one from using phased-array scanning or CAC-BF (coherent aperture combining beamforming) scanning (see below) in azimuth and/or elevation” [0095]. Therefore, the sensor array has a width W in an azimuthal direction and a height H in an elevation direction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord such that the sensor array has a width W in an azimuthal direction and a height H in an elevation direction as disclosed in Weber in order to allow for the control of direction in which the ultrasonic beams travel. A sensor array with a width W in an azimuthal direction and a height H in an elevation direction, is one of a finite number of devices which can be used to obtain images with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord such that the sensor array has a width W in an azimuthal direction and a height H in an elevation direction as disclosed in Weber would yield the predictable result of controlling the direction in which ultrasonic beams are directed.
However, the combination of Savord and Weber does not teach “wherein the one or more active windows are stripes having width W and having height h< 0.25 H”.
Wodnicki is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves a modular transducer array see ([Claim 1]).
Wodnicki teaches “wherein the one or more active windows are stripes having width W and having height h< 0.25 H” (“An architecture of an example of a modular US system 1100 is illustrated in FIG. 11. Here, the modular US system 1100 includes an array 1120 of 32×128=4096 piezoelectric elements and is comprised of M (e.g., M=8) individual transducer modules […] The US imaging system 1100's channels are mapped to the 32×128 piezoelectric element large area array 1120 by breaking it into individual transducer matrices or banks of 16×32 uniquely assigned piezoelectric elements. A 32×16 piezoelectric element active aperture is translated across the 32×128 piezoelectric element array 1120 by selectively turning on and off successive columns of switches in neighboring banks of piezoelectric elements, {1122-k, 1122-(k+1)}. As described below in connection with FIGS. 13A-13B, 14A-14B and 15A-15B, different sized active apertures can be created by trading off the number of channels corresponding to piezoelectric elements along the elevation direction with the number of channels corresponding to piezoelectric elements along the azimuthal direction by using different switch configurations” [0071].
As shown in FIG. 11, the active aperture is 32x16, where 32 is the number of columns (i.e. corresponding to the width in the x/azimuthal direction) and 16 is the number rows (i.e. corresponding to the height in the y/elevation direction) included in the active aperture. In this case, the total number of columns (i.e. width) in the transducer array is 128, thus, ¼ of 128 would be 32. The height (i.e. in the y/elevation direction) of the active aperture remains constant (i.e. 16 piezoelectric elements) as it translates across the 32x128 piezoelectric elements. Thus, the height of the active aperture (i.e. h) is the same as the height of the transducer array (i.e. H), not less than 0.25 of transducer array (i.e. height H). However, paragraph [0071] also states that different sized active apertures can be created by trading off the number of channels corresponding to piezoelectric elements along the elevation direction (i.e. the height), under broadest reasonable interpretation, the height of the active window can be adjusted to less than 0.25 of the total height of the transducer array.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the one or more active windows are stripes having width W and having height h < 0.25 H as disclosed in Wodnicki in order to allow the ultrasonic beam from the active aperture to be effectively directed/focused. Having an active aperture with a width of W and a height h < 0.25 H is one of a finite number of transducer configurations which can be used to direct ultrasonic waves along a specific direction with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the one or more active windows are stripes having width W and having height h < 0.25 H as disclosed in Wodnicki would yield the predictable result of directing ultrasonic beams to a focused area.
Regarding claim 4, Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 3 above, and Wodnicki further teaches "wherein the sensor array has equal element pitch in the elevation direction and the azimuthal direction” (“In some implementations, a width of the modular array along an azimuthal direction and a height of the modular array along an elevation direction can be roughly equal. […] In some implementations, pitches of the conducting interposer along azimuthal and elevation directions can match respective pitches of a transducer array” [0012]. Therefore, since the width of the modular array along an azimuthal direction and the height of the modular array along an elevation direction are roughly equal and the pitch of the of the conducting interposer along the azimuthal and elevation directions matches respective pitches of the transducer array, the sensor array has equal element pitch in the elevation direction and the azimuthal direction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the sensor array has equal element pitch in the elevation direction and the azimuthal direction as disclosed in Wodnicki in order to allow the ultrasonic beam from the active aperture to be effectively directed/focused. Having a sensor array with equal element pitch in the elevation direction and the azimuthal direction is one of a finite number of transducer configurations which can be used to direct ultrasonic waves along a specific direction with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the sensor array has equal element pitch in the elevation direction and the azimuthal direction as disclosed in Wodnicki would yield the predictable result of directing ultrasonic beams to a focused area.
Regarding claim 6, Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 3 above, and Savord further teaches “wherein the system processor is configured to perform tomographic reconstruction of an acoustic image from slice-by-slice data acquired by elevational scanning of the stripes along the height H” (“Phases array ultrasound transducers having multiple elements in the azimuth direction and a few elements in the elevation direction permit scanning in the azimuth direction and elevation focusing” [Column 1, Lines 34-37]; “In accordance with the invention, an ultrasound imaging system that utilizes a two-dimensional transducer array to generate three-dimensional images of a region of interest is provided. Speed is achieved by electronically steering transmit and receive beams in azimuth and elevation” [Column 5, Lines 35-39]; “The beamformer signal is applied to a scan converter 28 which converts sector scan signals generated by a beamformer 20 to conventional raster display signals. The output of scan converter 28 is supplied to a video display unit 30, which displays an image of the region of interest in the patient’s body” [Column 5, Lines 16-21]. As shown in FIG. 1, system controller 32 outputs a control signal to the scan converter 28 to allow it to convert sector scan signals from the beamformer 20 into raster display signals for display on the video display unit 30. Therefore, the system processor is configured to perform tomographic reconstruction of an acoustic image from slice-by-slice data acquired by elevational scanning (see Column 5, Lines 35-39]) of the stripes along the height H.).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber” and Wodnicki et al. US 2020/0046320 A1 “Wodnicki” as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Ayter JP 2004041730 A “Ayter”.
Regarding claim 5, Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 3 above, however the combination does not teach "wherein the sensor array has a larger pitch in the elevation direction than the azimuthal direction”.
Ayter is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves a multi-dimensional transducer array (see [Abstract]).
Ayter teaches "wherein the sensor array has a larger pitch in the elevation direction than the azimuthal direction” (“Elements 24 are provided in rows 202 along the elevation direction. The pitch or spacing along the elevation direction is greater than the pitch or spacing along the azimuth direction” [0072]. Therefore, the sensor array has a larger pitch in the elevation direction than the azimuthal direction.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki such that the sensor array has equal element pitch in the elevation direction and the azimuthal direction as disclosed in Ayter in order to allow the ultrasonic beam from the active aperture to be effectively directed/focused. Having a sensor array has a larger pitch in the elevation direction than the azimuthal direction is one of a finite number of transducer configurations which can be used to direct ultrasonic waves along a specific direction with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the sensor array has a larger pitch in the elevation direction than the azimuthal direction as disclosed in Ayter would yield the predictable result of directing ultrasonic beams to a focused area.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber” and Wodnicki et al. US 2020/0046320 A1 “Wodnicki” as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Wang et al. US 2021/0106305 A1 “Wang”.
Regarding claim 7, Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 6 above, however, the combination does not teach “wherein the tomographic reconstruction provides visualization of blood vessels, in either Doppler or B mode imaging”.
Wang is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves a system for visualization and quantification of ultrasound imaging data (see [Abstract]).
Wang teaches “wherein the tomographic reconstruction provides visualization of blood vessels, in either Doppler or B mode imaging” (“The array 814 may include, for example, a two dimensional array of transducer elements capable of scanning in both elevation and azimuth dimensions for 2D and/or 3D imaging” [0057]; “FIG. 5 shows a screen capture of a display unit displaying an example set of images generated in accordance with the present disclosure, which display a relatively smooth blood flow in a vessel” [0019]; “The processed signals may be coupled to a B-mode processor 828 for producing B-mode image data. The B-mode processor can employ amplitude detection for the imaging of structures in the body” [0060]. In this case, the image shown in FIG. 5, is a B-mode image which shows structures in the body, specifically a blood vessel. In order to display the image shown in FIG. 5, the system processor must perform tomographic reconstruction to provide visualization of blood vessels in either Doppler or B mode imaging.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki such that the signal processor performs tomographic reconstruction which provides visualization of blood vessels, in either Doppler or B mode imaging, as disclosed in Wang in order to allow for effective visualization of blood vessels within ultrasound images. Performing tomographic reconstruction to provide visualization of blood vessel is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to assess the blood vessels with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki such that the signal processor performs tomographic reconstruction which provides visualization of blood vessels, in either Doppler or B mode imaging, as disclosed in Wang would yield the predictable result of providing ultrasound images in which blood vessels are readily identifiable for assessment thereof.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber” and Wodnicki et al. US 2020/0046320 A1 “Wodnicki” as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Hynynen et al. US 2020/0205773 A1 “Hynynen”.
Regarding claim 8, Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 6 above, however the combination does not teach “wherein the tomographic reconstruction includes corrections for obstacles selected from the group consisting of: gas and bone”.
Hynynen is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasound imaging system for imaging soft tissue through bone matter of a subject (see [Abstract]).
Hynynen teaches “wherein the tomographic reconstruction includes corrections for obstacles selected from the group consisting of: gas and bone” (“A digital map of the individual characteristics (internal and external surfaces) of each skull is created and used to estimate and correct for the delay introduced by the bone layer, in order to correct for aberration artifacts. Phase and amplitude corrections to the received longitudinal waves (including converted shear waves) are used in receive beamforming to correct for bone aberrations” [0012]; “In some embodiment, the received RF signal collected from the reflected longitudinal waves 30 may be corrected for attenuation and phase shift due to the skull bone 10 for image reconstruction purposes” [0086]. Therefore, since aberration artifacts (i.e. from bone) are corrected for, the tomographic reconstruction includes corrections for obstacles selected from the group consisting of: gas and bone (i.e. specifically bone).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki such that the signal processor is configured to perform tomographic reconstruction which includes corrections for obstacles selected from the group consisting of: gas and bone as disclosed in Hynynen in order to improve the visualization of features of interest (i.e. a blood vessel, for example). Correcting for obstacles such as bone is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to improve image quality with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber and Wodnicki such that the signal processor is configured to perform tomographic reconstruction which includes corrections for obstacles selected from the group consisting of: gas and bone as disclosed in Hynynen would yield the predictable result of improving image quality such that features of interest, such as blood vessel can be more easily distinguished within ultrasound images.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Thiele US 2010/0168580 A1 “Thiele”.
Regarding claim 9, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, however Savord and Weber does not teach “wherein the 2D beamforming includes partial beamforming”.
Thiele is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system which performs partial beamforming (see [Abstract] and [0020]).
Thiele teaches “wherein the 2D beamforming includes partial beamforming” (“A two dimensional array transducer 30 is provided which electronically steers and focuses beams over a volumetric region 10 under control of a microbeamformer 36, main beamformer 38, and beamformer controller 42. […] Partially beamformed signals from the microbeamformer 36 are formed into fully beamformed signals by the main beamformer 38” [0020]. Therefore, the microbeamformer 36 performs partial beamforming of the signals obtained from the array transducer 30.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the signal processor performs partial beamforming as disclosed in Thiele in order to allow for full beamforming to be subsequently performed (see Thiele: [0020]) such that improved contrast images can be obtained from which diagnosis and assessment can be performed (See Thiele: [0029]). Partial beamforming is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to perform beamforming such that full beamforming can be subsequently performed with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the signal processor performs partial beamforming as disclosed in Thiele in order to allow for full beamforming to be subsequently performed (see Thiele: [0020]) such that improved contrast images can be obtained for diagnosis and assessment (See Thiele: [0029]).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Savord US 6,013,032 A “Savord” and further in view of Weber et al. US 2005/0288588 A1 “Weber” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boroczky et al. US 2018/0125446 A1 “Boroczky”.
Regarding claim 10, Savord in view of Weber discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and however, the combination does not teach "wherein the system processer includes a machine learning system for recognition of organs and/or pathology”.
Boroczky is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasound system with a cancer grading classifier (see [Abstract]).
Boroczky teaches "wherein the system processer includes a machine learning system for recognition of organs and/or pathology” (“As disclosed herein, the pixel-level RF time series information is used to generate a cancer grade map that can be overlaid onto a 2D image (e.g., b-mode image) of 3D image (for 3D ultrasound systems). […] a machine learning approach is employed in the disclosed embodiments. […] The cancer grading classifier (or classifiers) is trained using machine learning on labeled training data comprising ultrasound images actual biopsy locations for which histopathology grades have been assigned” [0020]. In this case, the cancer grading classifier recognizes pathology (i.e. cancer) within ultrasound images. Thus, the system processor includes a machine learning system for recognition of organs and/or pathology.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber such that the system processor includes a machine learning system for recognition of organs and/or pathology as disclosed in Boroczky in order to improve speed of diagnostic determinations (see Boroczky: [0010]: “Another advantage resides in providing such a cancer grade map in real-time”). Utilizing a machine learning system (i.e. classifier) is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to identify organs and/or pathology within ultrasound images with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the apparatus of Savord in view of Weber, such that the system processor includes a machine learning system for recognition of organs and/or pathology as disclosed in Boroczky would yield the predictable result of improving the speed of diagnosis from ultrasound images.
Claim(s) 14 is/are reject