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 . 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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim objections
Dependent claims 1-20 are objected.
“A method” in claims 2-10 should be amended to read as “The method”.
“An apparatus” in claims 12-20 should be amended to read as “The apparatus”.
Also term “normalising” in all claims should be amended to read as “normalizing”
Appropriate action is required.
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.
Claims 5-8 and 15-18 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites: “normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on a relative position and/or orientation between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver.” The normalizing as defined and cited by independent claim 1 comprises data processing steps, and these steps, i.e., selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data, are not geometry dependent. Claim does not define any other limitation to clearly relate normalization steps to the relative position and/or orientation between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver and therefore, it is not clear what it means, rendering claim indefinite. claim 15 is rejected for the same reason. For examination these limitations are interpreted as all the ultrasound signals received after passing through the scanned object are influenced by the relative position and/or orientation between the transceivers.
Claims 6 and 16 refer to an "analysis signal", and claims 8 and 18 refer to an
"overlap signal", although, Applicant can broadly claim a limitation, but mete and bounds of claims should clearly be defined, i.e., claim should clearly define the meaning of selecting the one or more lines of data in dependence on an analysis signal, and clearly define the meaning of normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver. For examination, first and second transceiver modules exchanging signals (often ultrasound) and a processor which computes position from these measurements reads on the limitation.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected at least based on their dependencies to rejected claims 6 and 16.
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.
Claims 1-5, 9-15,19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoglund, US 20150049580 A1 in view of Gibbons, Sean M., Claire Duvallet, and Eric J. Alm. "Correcting for batch effects in case-control microbiome studies." PLoS computational biology 14.4 (2018): e1006102.
Claim 1
Skoglund in Figs.1-11 discloses:
A method of calibrating a matrix-matrix (fig.3 312) through-transmission ultrasound apparatus (¶0056) for use in scanning (¶0083) an object (107,108) to obtain subsurface information (e.g., ¶0038) from the object (107,108), the ultrasound apparatus (e.g., ¶0084) comprising a first ultrasound transceiver (102, 301) having a first 2D array (e.g., ¶0089) for transmitting an ultrasound pulse (e.g., ¶0038) towards the object (107,108) and a second ultrasound transceiver having a second 2D array (e.g., ¶0089) for receiving through-transmission ultrasound from the object (107,108); the method comprising:
Transmitting (using 102), using the first ultrasound transceiver (e.g., ¶0056) , the ultrasound pulse towards the object (107,108);
Receiving (using 103) , using the second ultrasound transceiver (e.g., ¶0056), through-transmission ultrasound signals from the object (107,108);
Skoglund discloses percentile normalization (¶0079), although does not specifically disclose: selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data, Skoglund’s percentile normalization broadly comprises: selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data.
In the similar field of endeavor, Gibbons in e.g., fig.1 teaches percentile normalization (e.g., Abstract) selecting one or more lines of data in the received data (subset of control samples as reference for percentile calculation: e.g., page 2 description of fig.1); and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data (case samples as non-reference are normalized using percentiles from control or reference lines, for each sample convert to percentiles within the same dataset) using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data (after transformation case and control data be compared, i.e., case and control samples are distinct from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gibbons’ percentile normalization for Skoglund‘s normalization and selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the modified Skoglund‘s received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data as taught by Gibbons . One of ordinary skill in the art knows these steps are consistent with percentile normalization would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a simple approach and improving sensitivity (e.g., Gibbons’ Abstract).
Claim 2
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, Skoglund teaches comprising selecting the one or more lines of data based on a detected change in data values along the one or more lines of data (e.g., ¶0054¶0055).
Claim 3
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 2, Skoglund teaches in which the detected change comprises a change in one or more of intensity and gradient (e.g., ¶0054).
Claim 4
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, Skoglund teaches comprising selecting the one or more lines of data based on a comparison with an expected data profile (e.g., ¶0065).
Claim 5
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, the modified Skoglund teaches comprising normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on a relative position and/or orientation between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver based on obviousness(all the ultrasound signals received after passing through the scanned object are influenced by the relative position and/or orientation between the transceivers).
Claim 9
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, the modified Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches comprising normalising all the lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data based on obviousness as cited in claim 1.
Claim 10
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, the modified Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches in which selecting one or more lines of data comprises automatically selecting the one or more lines of data based on an analysis of the lines of data in the received data (Gibbons algorithm automatically identifies which samples fall at those percentile profiles) based on obviousness as cited above in claim 1. Furthermore, examiner notes that the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III (“Automating A Manual Activity”). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2114.IV, broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim 11
Skoglund in Figs.1-11 discloses:
A matrix-matrix through-transmission ultrasound apparatus for use in scanning an object to obtain subsurface information from the object, the ultrasound apparatus comprising:
a first ultrasound transceiver (102) having a first 2D array (e.g., ¶0012 ¶0089,also fig.3 301) configured to transmit an ultrasound pulse towards the object (107,108);
a second ultrasound transceiver (103) having a second 2D array (e.g., ¶0012 ¶0089,,also fig.3 301) configured to receive through-transmission ultrasound from the object (at 107).
Skoglund discloses percentile normalization (¶0079), although does not specifically disclose: selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data, Skoglund’s percentile normalization broadly comprises: selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data.
In the similar field of endeavor, Gibbons in e.g., fig.1 teaches percentile normalization (e.g., Abstract) selecting one or more lines of data in the received data (subset of control samples as reference for percentile calculation: e.g., page 2 description of fig.1); and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the received data (case samples as non-reference are normalized using percentiles from control or reference lines, for each sample convert to percentiles within the same dataset) using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data (after transformation case and control data be compared, i.e., case and control samples are distinct from each other).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Gibbons’ percentile normalization for Skoglund‘s normalization and selecting one or more lines of data in the received data; and normalising at least a subset of lines of data in the modified Skoglund‘s received data using the selected one or more lines of data, where the subset comprises at least one non-selected line of data as taught by Gibbons . One of ordinary skill in the art knows these steps are consistent with percentile normalization would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a simple approach and improving sensitivity (e.g., Gibbons’ Abstract).
Claim 12
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 11, Skoglund teaches comprising selecting the one or more lines of data based on a detected change in data values along the one or more lines of data (e.g., ¶0054¶0055).
Claim 13
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 12, Skoglund teaches in which the detected change comprises a change in one or more of intensity and gradient (e.g., ¶0054).
Claim 14
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, Skoglund teaches comprising selecting the one or more lines of data based on a comparison with an expected data profile (e.g., ¶0065).
Claim 15
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 11, the modified Skoglund teaches comprising normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on a relative position and/or orientation between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver based on obviousness(all the ultrasound signals received after passing through the scanned object are influenced by the relative position and/or orientation between the transceivers).
Claim 19
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 11, the modified Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches comprising normalising all the lines of data in the received data using the selected one or more lines of data based on obviousness as cited in claim 1.
Claim 20
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 11, the modified Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches in which selecting one or more lines of data comprises automatically selecting the one or more lines of data based on an analysis of the lines of data in the received data (Gibbons algorithm automatically identifies which samples fall at those percentile profiles) based on obviousness as cited above in claim 1. Furthermore, examiner notes that the courts have held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. See MPEP 2144.04 III (“Automating A Manual Activity”). Furthermore, based on MPEP 2114.IV, broadly claiming an automated means to replace a manual function to accomplish the same result does not distinguish over the prior art. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claims 6-7 , 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoglund, US 20150049580 A1 in view of Gibbons, Sean M., Claire Duvallet, and Eric J. Alm. "Correcting for batch effects in case-control microbiome studies." PLoS computational biology 14.4 (2018): e1006102 and Elvira, Santiago, Angel de Castro, and Javier Garrido. "ALO: An ultrasound system for localization and orientation based on angles." Microelectronics Journal 44.10 (2013): 959-967.
Claim 6
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim 1, but the combination does not teach comprising selecting the one or more lines of data in dependence on an analysis signal indicative of the relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver.
In the similar field of endeavor, Elvira teaches analysis signal indicative of the relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver (e.g., fig.1 analysis signal indicative of the relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver T and the second ultrasound transceiver R1 are determined based on DTOA, e.g., page 960 para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Elvira‘s analysis signal for the modified Skoglund‘s method and selecting the one or more lines of data in dependence on an analysis signal indicative of the modified Skoglund’s relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use it for localization systems (e.g., Elvira Introduction section).
Claim 7
Skoglund in view of Gibbons and Elvira teaches a method according to claim 6, Elvira teaches in which the analysis signal comprises an indication of an alignment between the first ultrasound transceiver T and the second ultrasound transceiver R3.
Claim 16
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 11, but the combination does not teach comprising selecting the one or more lines of data in dependence on an analysis signal indicative of the relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver.
In the similar field of endeavor, Elvira teaches analysis signal indicative of the relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver (e.g., fig.1 analysis signal indicative of the relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver T and the second ultrasound transceiver R1 are determined based on DTOA, e.g., page 960 para 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Elvira‘s analysis signal for the modified Skoglund‘s method and selecting the one or more lines of data in dependence on an analysis signal indicative of the modified Skoglund’s relative positions of the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use it for localization systems (e.g., Elvira Introduction section).
Claim 17
Skoglund in view of Gibbons and Elvira teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 16, Elvira teaches in which the analysis signal comprises an indication of an alignment between the first ultrasound transceiver T and the second ultrasound transceiver R3.
Claims 8 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Skoglund, US 20150049580 A1 in view of Gibbons, Sean M., Claire Duvallet, and Eric J. Alm. "Correcting for batch effects in case-control microbiome studies." PLoS computational biology 14.4 (2018): e1006102 and Li, Zhipeng, et al. "A study on determining time-of-flight difference of overlapping ultrasonic signal: Wave-transform network." Sensors 20.18 (2020): 5140.
Claim 8
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches a method according to claim1, but the combination does not teach comprising normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver.
In the similar field of endeavor, Li teaches an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver (Li teaches Deep CNN to separate overlapping ultrasound signals to determine time of flight of each component, e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li‘s overlap signal for the modified Skoglund‘s method comprising normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the modified Skoglund’s first ultrasound transceiver and the modified Skoglund’s second ultrasound transceiver . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use overlap signals to determine TOF and therefore calculate the thickness of pipelines (Li, Abstract) .
Claim 18
Skoglund in view of Gibbons teaches an apparatus as claimed in claim 11, but the combination does not teach comprising normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver.
In the similar field of endeavor, Li teaches an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the first ultrasound transceiver and the second ultrasound transceiver (Li teaches CNN to separate overlapping ultrasound signals to determine time of flight of each component, e.g., Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use Li‘s overlap signal for the modified Skoglund‘s method comprising normalising the at least a subset of lines of data based on an overlap signal indicative of an overlap between the modified Skoglund’s first ultrasound transceiver and the modified Skoglund’s second ultrasound transceiver . One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use overlap signals to determine TOF and therefore calculate the thickness of pipelines (Li, Abstract) .
Conclusion
SKOGLUND-2, CA 3117749 A1
SKOGLUND-2 in figs.1-5 teaches:
A matrix-matrix through-transmission ultrasound apparatus for use in scanning an object to obtain subsurface information from the object, the ultrasound apparatus comprising:
a first ultrasound transceiver (202, page 8 L.17) having a first 2D array (Page 9. L.26-29, page 8 L.30 ,also fig.3 301) configured to transmit an ultrasound pulse towards the object (at 207);
a second ultrasound transceiver (203) having a second 2D array (Page 9. L.26-29, page 8 L.30 ,also fig.3 301) configured to receive through-transmission ultrasound from the object (at 207).
Skoglund -3, US 20150049579 A1
Skoglund -3 teaches a method of calibrating a matrix-matrix (fig.3 312) through-transmission ultrasound apparatus (¶0056) for use in scanning (¶0083) an object (107,108) to obtain subsurface information (e.g., ¶0038) from the object (107,108), the ultrasound apparatus (e.g., ¶0084) comprising a first ultrasound transceiver (102, 301) having a first 2D array (e.g., ¶0089) for transmitting an ultrasound pulse (e.g., ¶0038) towards the object (107,108) and a second ultrasound transceiver having a second 2D array (e.g., ¶0089) for receiving through-transmission ultrasound from the object (107,108); the method comprising:
Transmitting (using 102), using the first ultrasound transceiver (e.g., ¶0056) , the ultrasound pulse towards the object (107,108);
Receiving (using 103) , using the second ultrasound transceiver (e.g., ¶0056), through-transmission ultrasound signals from the object (107,108);
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Fatemeh E. Nia whose telephone number is (469)295-9187. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am to 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kristina DeHerrera can be reached on (303) 297-4237. 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.
/FATEMEH ESFANDIARI NIA/Examiner, Art Unit 2855