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 .
INFORMATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 10 April 2024 and 29 April 2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDSs have been considered by the Examiner herein.
CLAIM STATUS
Claims 1-25 were originally filed.
Claims 4, 6, 9, 13, and 22 were canceled by the preliminary amendment filed 28 December 2023.
Claims 3, 5, 7, 10-12, 16, 18, and 20-21 were amended by the preliminary amendment filed 28 December 2023.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-8, 10-12, 14-21, and 23-25 are currently pending and have been examined herein.
INITIAL REMARKS
Applicant is reminded that in order to be entitled to reconsideration or further examination, the Applicant or patent owner must reply to the Office action. The reply by the Applicant or patent owner must be reduced to a writing which distinctly and specifically points out the supposed errors in the examiner' s action and must reply to every ground of objection and rejection in the prior Office action. The reply must present arguments pointing out the specific distinctions believed to render the claims, including any newly presented claims, patentable over any applied references. If the reply is with respect to an application, a request may be made that objections or requirements as to form not necessary to further consideration of the claims, be held in abeyance until allowable subject matter is indicated. The Applicant's or patent owner's reply must appear throughout to be a bona fide attempt to advance the application or the reexamination proceeding to final action. 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 does not comply with the requirements of this section.
Should the Applicant believe that a telephone conference would expedite the prosecution of the instant application, Applicant is invited to call the Examiner.
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
Claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph1:
the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “processor configured to… determine… select… drive… receive… gate… calibrate…” in claim 24.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may:
amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or
present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION - The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, the Applicant), regards as the invention.
Re claim 17, Applicant recites the limitation, “other than the tile from which the selected one or more lines of data are taken”. However, Applicant lacks antecedent basis for this limitation, thereby rendering it indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution and for the purposes of examination, the Examiner will interpret these limitations as normalizing the received reflection data.
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10-12, 14-21, and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Skoglund et al., US20150078129 (“SKOGLUND”).
Re claim 1, SKOGLUND discloses,
A method of calibrating an ultrasound apparatus for use in scanning an object to obtain subsurface information from the object, the ultrasound apparatus comprising an ultrasound transceiver for transmitting an ultrasound pulse towards the object and receiving a resultant ultrasound reflection signal from the object [0033];
the method comprising:
determining a characteristic material in respect of the object to be scanned; selecting a feature of the characteristic material against which to calibrate the ultrasound apparatus [0060];
driving a pre-defined ultrasound pulse template into the characteristic material [0061-0062;
receiving a resultant ultrasound reflection signal from the characteristic material [0020];
gating the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal based on the selected feature [0051]; and
calibrating the ultrasound apparatus using the gated received resultant ultrasound reflection signal [0060]
Re claim 2, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which determining the characteristic material comprises determining a material having an acoustic impedance corresponding to an expected acoustic impedance of the object to be scanned, and selecting that determined material as the characteristic material [0055], [0060]
Re claim 3, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which determining the characteristic material comprises:
determining an expected thickness of the object to be scanned, and selecting a material having a thickness corresponding to the expected thickness as the characteristic material [0063]; or
determining an expected depth of a feature in the object to be scanned, and selecting a material having a thickness corresponding to the expected depth as the characteristic material [0063];
or
determining an expected thickness of the object to be scanned, and selecting a material having a particular thickness based on the relative speeds of ultrasound in the object to be scanned and in the characteristic material such that ultrasound propagation times through the expected thickness of the object and through the particular thickness of the characteristic material correspond [0063]; or
determining an expected depth of a feature in the object to be scanned, and selecting a material having a particular thickness based on the relative speeds of ultrasound in the object to be scanned and in the characteristic material such that ultrasound propagation times through the expected depth of the object and through the particular thickness of the characteristic material correspond [0063]
Re claim 5, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which selecting the feature of the characteristic material against which to calibrate the ultrasound apparatus comprises:
selecting a subsurface feature of the characteristic material, and gating the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal comprises gating a subsurface reflection in the reflection signal [0064]; and/or
selecting a backwall of the characteristic material, and gating the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal comprises gating a backwall reflection in the reflection signal [0064];
or
selecting a front wall of the characteristic material, and gating the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal comprises gating a front wall reflection in the reflection signal [0064]
Re claim 7, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the characteristic material comprises a homogeneous material [0060]
Re claim 10, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which determining the characteristic material comprises:
determining an expected type of subsurface feature of the object to be scanned, and selecting a material having a type of subsurface feature corresponding to the expected type of subsurface feature as the characteristic material [0004], [0035]; and/or
determining an expected subsurface feature of the object to be scanned, and selecting a material having a subsurface feature corresponding to the expected subsurface feature as the characteristic material [0004], [0035]
Re claim 11, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the ultrasound transceiver comprises a plurality of transducer elements, and driving the pre-defined ultrasound pulse template into the characteristic material comprises driving the ultrasound transceiver to transmit the pulse, and calibrating the ultrasound apparatus comprises selecting a subset of the plurality of transducer elements for use in scanning the object [0043-0047]
Re claim 12, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 11, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the plurality of transducer elements are provided across an area [0043-0047], and the subset of transducer elements comprises:
transducer elements of the plurality of transducer elements provided away from a periphery of the area [0043-0047]; and/or
transducer elements of the plurality of transducer elements provided centrally to the area [0043-0047]
Re claim 14, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 11, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal comprises respective components received at each respective transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements [0051], and selecting the subset comprises selecting transducer elements of the plurality of transducer elements at which an amplitude of the respective components is within a threshold standard deviation of the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal [0043-0047]
Re claim 15, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 11, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the received resultant ultrasound reflection signal comprises respective components received at each respective transducer element of the plurality of transducer elements [0043-0047], and selecting the subset comprises discarding transducer elements of the plurality of transducer elements at which an amplitude of the respective components is one of the x highest amplitudes or one of the y lowest amplitudes, where x and y are selected based on the distribution of amplitudes, and selecting the remainder as the subset of the plurality of transducer elements for use in scanning the object [0065]
Re claim 16, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
selecting one or more lines of data in a scan and normalising scan data using the selected one or more lines of data [0050], [0065-0077]
Re claim 17, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 16, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
normalising a tile of data other than the tile from which the selected one or more lines of data are taken [0065]
Re claim 18, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 16, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
selecting the one or more lines of data based on a detected change in data values along the one or more lines of data [0006-0010]
Re claim 19, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 18, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the detected change comprises a change in one or more of intensity and gradient [0006-0010]
Re claim 20, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 16, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
selecting the one or more lines of data based on a comparison with an expected data profile [0050], [0063-0064]
Re claim 21, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the pre- defined ultrasound pulse template comprises:
a pulse template consisting of two or more pulses of the same length [0017-0018]; and/or
a pulse template consisting of two or more pulses in which the length of one of those pulses is different from the length of at least another of those pulses [0017-0018]
Re claim 23, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 1, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
in which the pre- defined ultrasound pulse template comprises a pulse template consisting of a single step [0019]
Re claim 24, Applicant recites claim limitations of the same or substantially the same scope as that of claim 1. Accordingly, claim 24 is rejected in the same or substantially the same manner as claim 1.
Re claim 25, SKOGLUND discloses the apparatus of claim 24, as shown above. SKOGLUND further discloses,
a user input device configured to receive a user input for selecting the feature of the characteristic material against which to calibrate the ultrasound apparatus [0014]
CLAIM REJECTIONS - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over SKOGLUND in view of Sapia et al., US5513531 (“SAPIA”).
Re claim 8, SKOGLUND discloses the method of claim 3, as shown above.
SKOGLUND further discloses, selecting the material having a thickness corresponding to the expected thickness closest to the expected thickness [0064]
SKOGLUND fails to explicitly disclose in which the characteristic material comprises a step wedge having multiple steps of different thicknesses, and selecting the material having a thickness corresponding to the expected thickness comprises selecting a step of the multiple steps having a thickness closest to the expected thickness
However, SAPIA, in the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a characteristic material comprising a step wedge having multiple steps of different thicknesses, and selecting the material having a thickness corresponding to the expected thickness comprises selecting a step of the multiple steps having a thickness closest to the expected thickness [c.11/ll.33-53]
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant invention, to modify SKOGLUND to include the specific characteristic material selection of SAPIA. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide a calibration means to obtain simple and reliable measurements with an ultrasound device (see at least SAPIA [c.2/ll.19-21], [c.2/ll.42-45]. Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provided that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, SAPIA merely teaches that it is well-known to to select a step-wedge material for an ultrasound calibration system. Since both SKOGLUND and SAPIA disclose similar ultrasound calibration systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results.
RELEVANT PRIOR ART
The Examiner would like to make Applicant aware of prior art references, not relied upon in this action, but pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure. They are as follows:
US20150049579, Skoglund et al. – an ultrasound apparatus for imaging structural features of an object below the surface.
CONCLUSION
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOMAS M HAMMOND III whose telephone number is 571-272-2215. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 0800-1700.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached on 571-272-2375. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. For more information about the PAIR system, see: https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair.
Respectfully,
/Thomas M Hammond III/Primary Examiner, GAU 2855
1 MPEP § 2181, subsection I