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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 10-15 and 23-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by International Application Publication WO 2020/146880 A1 (hereinafter “Alizad”).
Regarding claim 1, Alizad discloses a method for reverberation signal suppression in ultrasound imaging of a subject, comprising:
- accessing ultrasound imaging data of a subject that includes a plurality of frames at different times and including tissue signals of a first dimension rank and reverberation signals of a second dimension rank (ultrasound data accessed with a computer system (paragraph [0049]); ultrasound data may represent a time series of two-dimensional image frames (paragraph [0050]); tissue clutter filtering (paragraph [0074]) implies the presence of tissue and reverberation (clutter) signals in the ultrasound images; also “dimension rank” refers to movement (static or moving) of signals and objects in the ultrasound image (Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0057]), and thus the tissue and clutter signals in Alizad are inherently of a certain dimensional rank, for these signals are either static or moving);
- generating a region of interest (ROI) frames subset by determining a ROI for each frame in the plurality of frames (ultrasound images may include ultrasound images of a specific region-of-interest (paragraph [0072]));
- generating a spatiotemporal matrix from the ROI frames subset (ultrasound data are rearranged in a spatiotemporal matrix (paragraph [0051]));
- separating the tissue signals from the reverberation signals in the spatiotemporal matrix using an adaptive method (spatiotemporal clutter filtering using singular value decomposition, or tissue clutter filtering using independent component analysis (paragraph [0074])); and
- generating an image of the subject with the reverberation signals suppressed by subtracting the separated reverberation signals from the ultrasound imaging data (noise-suppressed power Doppler image is generated, corresponding to a subtraction of estimated background noise field from original power Doppler image in the log scale that is used for image display (paragraph [0062])).
Regarding claim 2, Alizad discloses wherein the adaptive method includes at least one of a robust principal component analysis (RPCA), principal component analysis, singular value decomposition, non-parametric-based method, independent component analysis, or blind source method (tissue clutter is suppressed by inputting the spatiotemporal matrix to a singular value decomposition (“SVD”) (paragraph [0051]); spatiotemporal clutter filtering using singular value decomposition, or tissue clutter filtering using independent component analysis (paragraph [0074])).
Regarding claim 10, Alizad discloses wherein the ultrasound imaging data includes at least one of in-phase/quadrature phase (IQ) data, post-beamformed radio frequency (RF) data, envelop data, or pre-beamformed channel data (ultrasound data may be ultrasound in-phase and quadrature (“IQ”) data (paragraph [0050])).
Regarding claim 11, Alizad discloses wherein the ultrasound imaging data are acquired in at least one of a fundamental or a harmonic imaging mode (when energized by a transmitter, a given transducer element produces a burst or ultrasonic energy, and the ultrasonic energy reflected back to the transducer array (e.g., an echo) from the object or subject under study is converted to an electrical signal (e.g., an echo signal) by each transducer element (paragraph [0096]), which is characteristic of a fundamental imaging mode).
Regarding claim 12, Alizad discloses wherein the ultrasound imaging data are acquired during free breathing of the subject to impart motion to a tissue (ultrasound images can be tracked using 2D displacement tracking techniques to estimate the axial and lateral motion associated with the brain tissue, which could be due to the motion of breathing (paragraph [0084])).
Regarding claim 13, Alizad discloses wherein the plurality of frames include at least one of 2D data or 3D data (image ultrasound may be two-dimensional image data or three-dimensional image data (paragraph [0050])).
Regarding claim 14, Alizad discloses a system for reverberation signal suppression in ultrasound imaging of a subject, comprising:
- a computer system (ultrasound data accessed with a computer system (paragraph [0049])) configured to:
i) access ultrasound imaging data of a subject that includes a plurality of frames at different times and including tissue signals of a first dimension rank and reverberation signals of a second dimension rank (ultrasound data accessed with a computer system (paragraph [0049]); ultrasound data may represent a time series of two-dimensional image frames (paragraph [0050]); tissue clutter filtering (paragraph [0074]) implies the presence of tissue and reverberation (clutter) signals in the ultrasound images; also “dimension rank” refers to movement (static or moving) of signals and objects in the ultrasound image (Applicant’s specification, paragraph [0057]), and thus the tissue and clutter signals in Alizad are inherently of a certain dimensional rank, for these signals are either static or moving);
ii) generate a region of interest (ROI) frames subset by determining a ROI for each frame in the plurality of frames (ultrasound images may include ultrasound images of a specific region-of-interest (paragraph [0072]));
iii) generate a spatiotemporal matrix from the ROI frames subset (ultrasound data are rearranged in a spatiotemporal matrix (paragraph [0051]));
iv) separate the tissue signals from the reverberation signals in the spatiotemporal matrix using an adaptive method (spatiotemporal clutter filtering using singular value decomposition, or tissue clutter filtering using independent component analysis (paragraph [0074])); and
v) generate an image of the subject with the reverberation signals suppressed by subtracting the separated reverberation signals from the ultrasound imaging data (noise-suppressed power Doppler image is generated, corresponding to a subtraction of estimated background noise field from original power Doppler image in the log scale that is used for image display (paragraph [0062])).
Regarding claim 15, Alizad discloses wherein the adaptive method includes at least one of a robust principal component analysis (RPCA), principal component analysis, singular value decomposition, non-parametric-based method, independent component analysis, or blind source method (tissue clutter is suppressed by inputting the spatiotemporal matrix to a singular value decomposition (“SVD”) (paragraph [0051]); spatiotemporal clutter filtering using singular value decomposition, or tissue clutter filtering using independent component analysis (paragraph [0074])).
Regarding claim 23, Alizad discloses wherein the ultrasound imaging data includes at least one of in-phase/quadrature phase (IQ) data, post-beamformed radio frequency (RF) data, envelop data, or pre-beamformed channel data (ultrasound data may be ultrasound in-phase and quadrature (“IQ”) data (paragraph [0050])).
Regarding claim 24, Alizad discloses wherein the ultrasound imaging data are acquired in at least one of a fundamental or a harmonic imaging mode (when energized by a transmitter, a given transducer element produces a burst or ultrasonic energy, and the ultrasonic energy reflected back to the transducer array (e.g., an echo) from the object or subject under study is converted to an electrical signal (e.g., an echo signal) by each transducer element (paragraph [0096]), which is characteristic of a fundamental imaging mode).
Regarding claim 25, Alizad discloses wherein the ultrasound imaging data are acquired during free breathing of the subject to impart motion to a tissue (ultrasound images can be tracked using 2D displacement tracking techniques to estimate the axial and lateral motion associated with the brain tissue, which could be due to the motion of breathing (paragraph [0084])).
Regarding claim 26, Alizad discloses wherein the plurality of frames include at least one of 2D data or 3D data (image ultrasound may be two-dimensional image data or three-dimensional image data (paragraph [0050])).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
7. Claims 7-9 and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alizad as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2020/0146656 A1 (hereinafter “Gong”).
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Alizad does not expressly disclose wherein the first dimension rank of the tissue signals is different than the second dimension rank of the reverberation signals.
Gong discloses a method for ultrasound system independent attenuation coefficient estimation. Gong states, at paragraph [0072], “The reverberations from the body wall will generally have different motion patterns (e.g., less motion compared to the real tissue motion due to breathing).” Thus, the dimension ranks of the tissue signals and the reverberation signals are different, as there is less motion in the reverberation signal as opposed to the tissue signal. Therefore, that the first dimension rank of the tissue signals is different than the second dimension rank of the reverberation signals would have been known to one of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, these signals, which are typically generated in the operation of the ultrasound system, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Gong disclose wherein the tissue signals have larger motion variability than the reverberation signals across the plurality of frames (at set forth above regarding claims 7 and 20, Gong discloses the reverberations from the body wall will generally have less motion compared to real tissue motion (paragraph [0072]), and thus the tissue signal has larger motion variability than the reverberation signal).
Further regarding apparatus claims 20 and 21, even if Gong were not applied, the claims would not be patentable. According to MPEP 2115, “[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963), see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935). In the claims, the tissue signals and reverberation signals are merely the material or article worked upon by the system for reverberation signal suppression in claim 14.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Gong further comprises determining attenuation coefficient values to generate an attenuation coefficient map of the subject (attenuation coefficient is estimated (paragraphs [0018]-[0025]); output may be configured for displaying images, maps, data plots, textual information, or other visual depictions or representations of acoustic properties (paragraph [0111])). Ultrasound attenuation coefficient estimation is useful for clinical application, for example, to differentiate tumors and quantify fat content in liver (paragraph [0002]). Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the teaching of Alizad by providing for the determination of attenuation coefficient values, as taught by Gong.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 3-6 and 16-19 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.
9. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 3 and 16, the cited prior art fails to disclose or suggest Applicant’s method of claim 2, or Applicant’s system of claim 15, wherein the adaptive method is RPCA, and 3. wherein a sparsity constraint of the tissue signal in the RPCA is in a wavelet-domain.
Claims 4-6 depend from claim 3, and claims 17-19 depend from claim 16.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS D LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7436. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at 571-270-5254. 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.
/THOMAS D LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2683