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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1/8/26 has been entered.
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 1-4, 6-14, and 16-21 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.
In claims 1 and 10, line 3, the limitation “prior to the beamformer” lacks antecedent basis. The beamformer is not set forth until line 4. The examiner would suggest first setting forth the beamformer, and then after the signal processor performing baseband conversion on the ultrasound data prior to the beamformer beamforming the ultrasound data. The order of the beamformer and signal processor should be switched.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-14, 16 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjanin et al. (US 5454372; hereinafter Banjanin) in view of Dentinger et al. (US 2012/0078106; hereinafter Dentinger), Clark (US 2009/0131791), and Mo et al. (US 9060669; hereinafter Mo).
Banjanin shows a method and ultrasound imaging system configured to provide a spectrogram of blood flow velocities from ultrasound data (abstract), the system comprising: a beamformer configured to perform multiline receive beamforming on ultrasound data (column 3, line 55-column 4, line 20); and at least one processor configured to: generate image data from the ultrasound data received from the beamformer (column 3, lines 21-50); organize the image data into a plurality of overlapping time segments (column 3, lines 21-50); perform an autocorrelation on individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments (column 5, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 45-50); detect a vessel in the ultrasound data of individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments based, at least in part, on the autocorrelation (column 5, lines 1-9; column 6, lines 45-50); extract a plurality of Doppler frequencies from the integrated image data of the individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments (column 5, lines 1-9)); calculate an angle between an ultrasound beam used to acquire the image data and the 1D contour (column 5, lines 10-15); convert the plurality of Doppler frequencies to a plurality of velocities based, at least in part, on the angle (column 5, lines 25-45); and plot the plurality of velocities for individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments on the spectrogram (column 5, lines 25-45).
Banjanin also shows wherein ultrasound data outside the ROI is not provided to the at least one processor (process outputs from range gates, column 4, lines 45-50); a signal processor configured to perform clutter filtering on the ultrasound data prior to the ultrasound data being provided to the at least one processor (column 5, lines 1-5); a signal processor configured to perform baseband conversion on the ultrasound data prior to the beamformer beamforming the ultrasound data (column 4, lines 25-30); a speaker, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to perform time domain processing on the plurality of Doppler frequencies and generate an audio output provided to the speaker (column 5, lines 40-45); a display, wherein the at least one processor provides display information for the 1D contour to be provided on the display (column 5, lines 35-40); a transducer array configured to transmit ultrasound beams and receive the ultrasound data responsive to the ultrasound beams; and a transmit controller configured to steer the ultrasound beams based, at least in part, on the 1D contour (column 3, lines 57-67); acquiring the ultrasound data by transmitting a plurality of ultrasound pulses with a transducer array (column 3, lines 57-67); a temporal spacing of the plurality of ultrasound pulses is based, at least in part, on velocities of flow in the vessel (column 3, lines 57-67).
Banjanin fails to show fit a one-dimensional (1D) contour to the vessel; integrate the image data from at least a portion of the 1D contour for individual time samples of the individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments; extract a plurality of Doppler frequencies from the integrated image data of the individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments. Banjanin also fails to show the display is further configured to provide a B-mode image and a color flow Doppler image simultaneously with the 1D contour; providing a graphic of the 1D contour; providing a line on the graphic indicating a maintained or a motion tracking of the 1D contour during a part of a heart cycle when there is no coronary flow.
Banjanin fails to show image data comprising a time series of time samples; organize the image data time samples.
Banjanin fails to show a signal processor configured to perform baseband conversion on the ultrasound data prior to the beamformer beamforming the data.
Dentinger discloses methods and systems for non-invasive monitoring of patient parameters. Dentinger teaches fit a one-dimensional (1D) contour to the vessel ([0035]-[0036]; Fig. 6); integrate the image data from at least a portion of the 1D contour for individual time samples of the individual ones of the plurality of overlapping time segments ([0074]-[0078]). Dentinger also teaches the display is further configured to provide a B-mode image and a color flow Doppler image simultaneously with the 1D contour ([0036]); providing a graphic of the 1D contour ([0035]; Fig. 6); providing a line on the graphic indicating a maintained or a motion tracking of the 1D contour during a part of a heart cycle when there is no coronary flow (tracking of the vessel occurs throughout heart cycle including when there is no coronary flow, and the data is represented by lines in the image).
Clark discloses an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system with spectral Doppler. Clark teaches image data comprising a time series of time samples; organize the image data time samples ([0003], [0019]-[0020], [0022]).
Mo discloses systems and methods for ultrasound imaging. Mo teaches a signal processor configured to perform baseband conversion on the ultrasound data prior to the beamformer beamforming the data (to reduce data sampling requirements, the RF data is often converted into baseband I/Q data before or after the beamformer; column 2, lines 32-47; column 6, lines 58-67).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Banjanin to fit a 1D contour to the vessel and to integrate the image data from the contour as taught by Dentinger, as fitting a 1D contour will provide a more accurate representation of the blood vessel by defining the centerline of the vessel in a computer coordinate space, in order to obtain thereby obtain more accurate diagnostic hemodynamic measurements of the vessel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Banjanin and Dentinger to obtain image data comprising a time series of time samples and organize the image data time samples as taught by Clark in order to improve the accuracy of the measurement ([0019]) and in order to produce the desired Spectral Doppler type display of the data over time ([0020]).
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide additional display types such as B-mode and color flow Doppler as taught by Dentinger, in order to provide additional visualization of the anatomy including structural and functional type image information.
Furthermore, Banjanin describes automatically selecting the region of interest in a manner well known to those of ordinary skill in the art (column 4, lines 40-45), and it would have been an obvious design choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, to utilize a manual selection of the region of interest, with a user interface configured to receive a user input, wherein the user input indicates a region of interest (ROI), in order to provide the user with additional control over the system. The benefits and drawbacks of automatic vs. manual techniques are known to those of ordinary skill in the art, and may be selected without undue experimentation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Banjanin, Dentinger, and Clark, to convert to baseband prior to the beamformer beamforming the data as taught by Mo, as Mo teaches that to reduce data sampling requirements, the RF data is often converted into baseband I/Q data before or after the beamformer (column 2, lines 32-47; column 6, lines 58-67). It would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to perform the baseband conversion either before or after beamforming as an obvious design choice, in order to achieve the same desired result of reducing the data sampling requirements, without undue experimentation.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjanin et al. (US 5454372; hereinafter Banjanin) in view of Dentinger et al. (US 2012/0078106; hereinafter Dentinger), Clark (US 2009/0131791), and Mo et al. (US 9060669; hereinafter Mo) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Moore et al. (US 2011/0087104; hereinafter Moore).
Banjanin fails to show applying a time window to the image data after the integrating and prior to extracting the plurality of Doppler frequencies; wherein the time window comprises a Hann window.
Moore discloses an intravascular ultrasound imaging system. Moore teaches applying a time window to the image data after the integrating and prior to extracting the plurality of Doppler frequencies ([0066]); wherein the time window comprises a Hann window ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Banjanin, Dentinger, Clark, and Mo to utilize a Hann window in defining the region of interest, as a Hann window is a well known and commonly applied signal processing feature, which provides the benefits of minimizing edge discontinuities as described by Moore ([0066]).
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banjanin et al. (US 5454372; hereinafter Banjanin) in view of Dentinger et al. (US 2012/0078106; hereinafter Dentinger), Clark (US 2009/0131791), and Mo et al. (US 9060669; hereinafter Mo) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Bakircioglu et al. (US 6733454; hereinafter Bakircioglu)
Banjanin fails to show wherein converting the plurality of Doppler frequencies to the plurality of velocities is further based on a log power of the plurality of Doppler frequencies.
Bakircioglu discloses automatic optimization methods and systems for Doppler ultrasound imaging. Bakircioglu teaches wherein converting the plurality of Doppler frequencies to the plurality of velocities is further based on a log power of the plurality of Doppler frequencies (column 4, lines 25-30).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Banjanin, Dentinger, Clark, and Mo to utilize a log power as taught by Bakircioglu, in order to aid in transforming/compressing the obtained data in a known ultrasound Doppler imaging data format, by which the data can then be further processed to obtain a desired result.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN CWERN whose telephone number is (571)270-1560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/JONATHAN CWERN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797