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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 6 January 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 6 January 2026.
Claim Interpretation
The interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is maintained absence traversal by Applicant.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 13-14, & 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torp et al. (US PGPUB 20190223828; hereinafter “Torp”) in view of Wang et al. (US PGPUB 20220071596 having an EFD of 3 January 2019; hereinafter "Wang")
With regards to Claim 1, an apparatus, comprising:
a processing pipeline (processor or processing subsystem, see Torp ¶ [0029]), including:
a stationary structure motion corrector configured to motion correct a stationary structure in a series of ultrasound images for subject motion, wherein the series of ultrasound images includes the stationary structure and a flowing structure (filtering the images over time to “reduce or remove stationary or slow-moving clutter which may otherwise impair the super-resolution imaging of the moving fluid”; see Torp ¶ [0038]-[0039]; i.e. using clutter filtering to attenuate/remove moving tissue (stationary structure such as muscle, fat, vessel walls) and moving fluid is interpreted as the flowing structure);
a stationary structure remover configured to remove the stationary structure from a motion corrected series of ultrasound images thereby producing flow images of the flowing structure (removing/reducing stationary tissue movement; see Torp ¶ [0038]-[0039] as described above); and
a flowing structure detector configured to detect (“[T]he peak-sharpening operation preferably comprises or consists of applying a non-linear function to pixel values (or amplitude values) in the (over-sampled) image data. It preferably amplifies extreme values (preferably relatively high values) within the image data more than it amplifies non-extreme values (preferably relatively low values)”; see Torp ¶ [0043]),
averaged to generate a super resolution ultrasound image (“By using temporal averaging to superimpose a plurality of peak-sharpened speckle patterns over time, the path of the fluid becomes visible in the output image”; see Torp ¶ [0052]).
While Torp teaches of a peak sharpening technique to further enhance the peaks isolated in the clutter filtering step via thresholding (see Torp ¶ [0045]) and of a combing operation applied after the peak sharpening operation, wherein the combining operation includes averaging {e.g. temporal averaging} the resolution enhanced image {i.e. detected flow peaks}, velocity analysis, or selecting a characteristic frame when the speckle pattern is somewhat consistent (see Torp ¶ [0051, 0053, 0055]), it appears that Torp may be silent to detecting the location of the peaks, wherein the detected peaks are peaks above a predetermined threshold, and summing the images of detected flow peaks.
However, Wang teaches of super-resolution imaging which includes microbubble localization {i.e. detect positions of peaks of flow} and microbubble accumulation {i.e. wherein the images of detected flow peaks are accumulated over time and summed to generate a super resolution ultrasound image} (see Wang ¶ [0015 & FIG> 4]). More specifically, Wang teaches of micro-bubble localization based on an intensity threshold filter to identify pixels associated with the microbubble. The filtered images are then accumulated over time to form an accumulation image of the center positions of the filtered microbubbles (see Wang ¶ [0015 & 0017-0018]).
Wang also teaches of microbubble identification is based on interpolation step can be performed to bring the image pixel size to a desired resolution; an intensity-based thresholding may be performed to remove background noise; local maxima search {kernel based image search} may be performed to find the locations of microbubbles (see Wang ¶ [0051]).
Torp and Wang are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super-resolution ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torp to incorporate the above teachings of Want to provide at least structure localization, peak thresholding, and peak accumulation and summing. The same method can be performed on blood cells along with microbubbles; therefore, doing so would aid in imaging very small blood vessels because (see Torp ¶ [0020]).
With regards to Claim 21, wherein the flowing structure includes erythrocytes(“[I]n preferred embodiments, the fluid is blood. The way that ultrasound reflects off blood cells in blood can give blood a characteristic speckle pattern when imaged using ultrasound”; see Torp ¶ [0019]; it should be appreciated that erythrocytes (red blood cells) are a major component of the moving fluid blood), the detected peaks correspond to flow of the erythrocytes, and the super resolution ultrasound image visually shows the vasculature (“the combining operation will generate speckle trails in the output image, which can enhance the usefulness of the image by providing a qualitative indication of flow along the vessel”; see Torp ¶ [0053]; wherein FIG. 14 illustrates a “a super-resolution power Doppler image of a vasculature in a kidney”; see Torp ¶ [0105]).
With regards to Claim 71, wherein the processing pipeline is configured to generate the super resolution ultrasound image in 1 to 10 seconds (frame rate is between 100Hz to 1000Hz, see Torp ¶ [0037], and a super-resolution image can be achieved from 100 image frames, see Torp ¶ [0093] & FIG. 5; thus, at a frame rate of 100Hz it would take approximately 1 second to achieve a super-resolution image).
With regards to Claim 83, further comprising:
a flow tracker configured to link the detect peaks of flow across the images of detected flow peaks, creating tracks of flow (“velocity vector estimation based on speckle tracking” which includes “tracking the movement of one or more elements in the speckle pattern over a plurality of frames”; see Torp ¶ [0053] & [0095]; it should be appreciated that speckle peak sharpening is performed prior to velocity estimation because it is performed on super-resolution images, thus the vectors are determined based on flow peaks which are interpreted as tracks of flow, see Torp ¶ [0096]).
With regards to Claim 98, wherein the flow tracker is configured to determine flow information based on the tracks of flow (velocity vector estimation based on speckle tracking as mentioned above is a type of flow information, see Torp ¶ [0095]-[0096]).
With regards to Claim 108, further comprising:
a velocity estimator configured to estimate velocity information based on the tracks of flow (velocity vector estimation based on speckle tracking as mentioned above is a type of flow information, see Torp ¶ [0095]-[0096]).
With regards to Claim 111, wherein the super resolution ultrasound image is a 2-D image or a 3-D image (the probe 2 having a one-dimensional array for two-dimensional imaging (2D) and a 2D array for three-dimensional imaging; see Torp ¶ [0077]).
With regards to Claim 13, a method (method for imaging fluid paths using ultrasound; see Torp ¶ 0001]), comprising:
motion correcting stationary structure in a series of ultrasound images for subject motion, wherein the series of ultrasound images includes the stationary structure and flowing structure (filtering the images over time to “reduce or remove stationary or slow-moving clutter which may otherwise impair the super-resolution imaging of the moving fluid”; see Torp ¶ [0038]-[0039]; i.e. using clutter filtering to attenuate/remove moving tissue (stationary structure such as muscle, fat, vessel walls) and moving fluid is interpreted as the flowing structure);
removing the stationary structure from the motion corrected series of ultrasound images thereby producing flow images of the flowing structure (removing/reducing stationary tissue movement; see Torp ¶ [0038]-[0039] as described above);
detecting positions of peaks of flow of the flowing structure in the flow images over time to generate images of detected flow peaks (micro-bubble localization based on an intensity threshold filter to identify pixels associated with the microbubble. The filtered images are then accumulated over time to form an accumulation image of the center positions of the filtered microbubbles; see Wang ¶ [0015 & 0017-0018]); and
accumulating and summing the images of detected flow peaks over time to generate a super resolution ultrasound image (micro-bubble localization based on an intensity threshold filter to identify pixels associated with the microbubble. The filtered images are then accumulated over time to form an accumulation image of the center positions of the filtered microbubbles; see Wang ¶ [0015 & 0017-0018]).
It should be appreciated that the same logic pattern and rationale are applied to Claim 17 as applied to Claim 13.
With regards to Claim 1413, wherein the flowing structure includes erythrocytes (“[I]n preferred embodiments, the fluid is blood. The way that ultrasound reflects off blood cells in blood can give blood a characteristic speckle pattern when imaged using ultrasound”; see Torp ¶ [0019]; it should be appreciated that erythrocytes (red blood cells) are a major component of the moving fluid blood), the detected peaks correspond to the erythrocytes, and the super resolution ultrasound image visually shows microvasculature (“the combining operation will generate speckle trails in the output image, which can enhance the usefulness of the image by providing a qualitative indication of flow along the vessel”; see Torp ¶ [0053]; wherein FIG. 14 illustrates a “a super-resolution power Doppler image of a vasculature in a kidney”; see Torp ¶ [0105]).
With regards to Claim 181, wherein each of the ultrasound images in the series of ultrasound images is divided into a plurality of overlapping patches of pixels, wherein a border of pixels overlaps adjacent patches in the plurality of overlapping patches, and the flowing structure detector is configured to detect the positions of peaks in each of the patches (microbubble identification is based on interpolation step can be performed to bring the image pixel size to a desired resolution; an intensity-based thresholding may be performed to remove background noise; local maxima search {kernel based image search} may be performed to find the locations of microbubbles; see Wang ¶ [0051]).
With regards to Claim 1918, wherein peaks above a threshold with respect to a maximum in an ultrasound image in the series of ultrasound images are identified as a position of a flowing structure of interest (microbubble identification is based on interpolation step can be performed to bring the image pixel size to a desired resolution; an intensity-based thresholding may be performed to remove background noise; local maxima search {kernel based image search} may be performed to find the locations of microbubbles; see Wang ¶ [0051]).
With regards to Claim 2019, wherein the flowing structure detector is configured to determine the position of the detected peaks using an interpolation procedure (microbubble identification is based on interpolation step can be performed to bring the image pixel size to a desired resolution; an intensity-based thresholding may be performed to remove background noise; local maxima search {kernel based image search} may be performed to find the locations of microbubbles; see Wang ¶ [0051]).
Claims 12 & 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torp as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Applicant admitted prior art (hereinafter "AAPA"; see Background section of instant specification).
With regards to Claim 121, while Torp discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 1 as shown above, it appears that Torp may be silent to comprising a transducer array with one or more transducer elements for emitting ultrasound waves, and wherein the super resolution ultrasound image has a resolution high enough to distinguish structures having dimensions smaller than half the wavelength of the ultrasound waves emitted by the transducer array. However, Applicant has admitted, in the Background of the instant specification, that “the diffraction limit of conventional ultrasound imaging is about half a wavelength.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “about” a value can be interpreted as slightly more and slightly less. Accordingly, Applicant has admitted that is well known in the art that conventional ultrasound imaging includes an array of transducer elements for resolving structures slightly less than “half a wavelength.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this amounts distinguishing structures slightly smaller than half the wavelength, as admitted by Applicant.
Torp and AAPA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super resolution ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torp to incorporate the above teachings of AAPA to provide at least a resolution high enough to distinguish structures having dimensions smaller than half the wavelength of the ultrasound waves. Doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, i.e. Applicant has admitted such a combination can yield results of resolving structures slightly less than half a wavelength.
With regards to Claim 1613, while Torp discloses all of the limitations of intervening claim 13 as shown above, it appears that Torp may be silent to wherein the super resolution ultrasound image has a resolution high enough to distinguish structures having dimensions smaller than half the wavelength of the ultrasound waves used for generating said series of ultrasound images. However, Applicant has admitted, in the Background of the instant specification, that “the diffraction limit of conventional ultrasound imaging is about half a wavelength.” One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that “about” a value can be interpreted as slightly more and slightly less. Accordingly, Applicant has admitted that is well known in the art that conventional ultrasound imaging includes an array of transducer elements for resolving structures slightly less than “half a wavelength.” Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, this amounts distinguishing structures slightly smaller than half the wavelength, as admitted by Applicant.
Torp and AAPA are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of super resolution ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Torp to incorporate the above teachings of AAPA to provide at least a resolution high enough to distinguish structures having dimensions smaller than half the wavelength of the ultrasound waves. Doing so would amount to combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results, i.e. Applicant has admitted such a combination can yield results of resolving structures slightly less than half a wavelength.
Claims 3-6 & 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torp in view of Wang as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Lin et al. (“A Motion Compounding Technique for Speckle Reduction in Ultrasound,” (7 January 2009), J Digit Imaging. 2010 Jun; 23(3): 246–257; hereinafter “Lin”).
With regards to Claim 31, while modified Torp discloses wherein the stationary structure motion corrector s for the subject motion (filtering the images over time to “reduce or remove stationary or slow-moving clutter which may otherwise impair the super-resolution imaging of the moving fluid”; see Torp ¶ [0038]-[0039]; i.e. using clutter filtering to attenuate/remove moving tissue (stationary structure such as muscle, fat, vessel walls) and moving fluid is interpreted as the flowing structure), it appears that modified Torp may be silent to aligning the stationary structure across the series of ultrasound images to compensate for the subject motion. However, Lin teaches of estimating motion to reduce speckle noise to improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) & contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) characteristics (see Lin Abstract). In particular, Lin teaches of aligning the stationary structure across the series of ultrasound images to compensates for the subject motion (averaging adjacent frames, which are registered and warped to the reference image, to generate a compound image with reduced speckle noise and enhanced contrast, see Lin Conclusion; the registration and warping is based on estimated motion fields where “each frame is hence spatially matched and tissue motion-corrected to the reference frame before being added to the compound image” (emphasis added); see Lin pg. 250, ¶ 5; it should be appreciated that to spatially match the frames is to align the structures across the series of ultrasound images as claimed).
Modified Torp and Lin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Torp to incorporate the teachings of Lin to provide a motion correction based on aligning the stationary structures across the series of images. Doing so would aid in reduce blurring stemming from frame averaging while improving SNR & CNR (see Lin pg. 250, ¶ 5).
With regards to Claim 43, modified Torp teaches of wherein the stationary structure motion corrector employs motion fields to align the stationary structure temporally, spatially or temporally and spatially (averaging adjacent frames, which are registered and warped to the reference image, to generate a compound image with reduced speckle noise and enhanced contrast, see Lin Conclusion; the registration and warping is based on estimated motion fields where “each frame is hence spatially matched and tissue motion-corrected to the reference frame before being added to the compound image” (emphasis added); see Lin pg. 250, ¶ 5).
With regards to Claim 53, modified Torp teaches of wherein the subject motion includes voluntary subject motion, involuntary subject motion, or both voluntary and involuntary subject motion (blood motion, i.e. both involuntary & voluntary motion; see Torp ¶ [0096]).
With regards to Claim 63, modified Torp teaches of wherein the stationary structure remover subtracts the stationary structure from the motion compensated series of ultrasound images to produce the flow images (“[T]he filtering of the image data can reduce or remove stationary or slow-moving clutter which may otherwise impair the super-resolution imaging of the moving fluid,” (emphasis added); see Torp ¶ [0038]).
With regards to Claim 1513, while modified Torp discloses wherein the motion correcting includes (filtering the images over time to “reduce or remove stationary or slow-moving clutter which may otherwise impair the super-resolution imaging of the moving fluid”; see Torp ¶ [0038]-[0039]; i.e. using clutter filtering to attenuate/remove moving tissue (stationary structure such as muscle, fat, vessel walls) and moving fluid is interpreted as the flowing structure), it appears that modified Torp may be silent to aligning the stationary structure across the series of ultrasound images to compensate for the subject motion. However, Lin teaches of estimating motion to reduce speckle noise to improve signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) & contrast-to-noise ratio (CNR) characteristics (see Lin Abstract). In particular, Lin teaches of aligning the stationary structure across the series of ultrasound images to compensates for the subject motion (averaging adjacent frames, which are registered and warped to the reference image, to generate a compound image with reduced speckle noise and enhanced contrast, see Lin Conclusion; the registration and warping is based on estimated motion fields where “each frame is hence spatially matched and tissue motion-corrected to the reference frame before being added to the compound image” (emphasis added); see Lin pg. 250, ¶ 5; it should be appreciated that to spatially match the frames is to align the structures across the series of ultrasound images as claimed).
Modified Torp and Lin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have further modified Torp to incorporate the teachings of Lin to provide a motion correction based on aligning the stationary structures across the series of images. Doing so would aid in reduce blurring stemming from frame averaging while improving SNR & CNR (see Lin pg. 250, ¶ 5).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 & 13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
More specifically, Applicant contends that Torp neither detects the position of peaks nor sums the images of detected flow peaks over time. However, newly cited Wang satisfies the shortcomings of Torp as detailed above.
More specifically, Applicant contends that Torp and Chen, as cited, does not obviate the newly amended claims. In support Applicant argues that “Chen et al. refer to the localization of the center of each microbubble and not the detection of flow peaks” and, accordingly, “It cannot then be disputed that neither Torp nor Chen disclose the detection of the positions of flow peaks wherein the detected peaks are peaks above a predetermined threshold.” The Office disagrees. Firstly, Applicant has provided no evidence or rationale as to why Torp and Chen, alone or in combination, cannot teach of detected peaks above a threshold as recently amended. Therefore, said argument amounts to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references.
Regardless, clearly discloses that disclosed method can be performed with or without microbubbles (see Torp ¶ [0020]); therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine the Torp disclosure with any super-resolution method relying upon microbubble contrast agent because doing so would aid in imaging very small blood vessels.
With regards to Claim to AAPA, Applicant “specifically disputes that the general observations in its Background section are obvious in any way when considered within the context of the invention as presently claimed.” The Office disagrees. According MPEP § 608.01(c), the Background of the invention includes “A paragraph(s) describing to the extent practical the state of the prior art or other information disclosed known to the applicant, including references to specific prior art or other information where appropriate. Where applicable, the problems involved in the prior art or other information disclosed which are solved by the applicant’s invention should be indicated.” For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. Nevertheless, Applicant has fails to provide any evidence or rationales against the obviousness rejection beyond a mere allegation of novelty. For at least this reason, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Song et al. (US PGPUB 20200178939);
Huang et al. (US PGPUB 20220292637).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798