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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-9 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 10/03/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/03/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Shen is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 5 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
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.
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 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama (US 6918876 B1, published July 19, 2005) in view of Chomas et al. (US 20060030779 A1, published February 9, 2006), hereinafter referred to as Kamiyama and Chomas, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 8 and 9, Kamiyama teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus applied to a scanning method in which there is a region where sensitivity is degraded in an imaging field of view (Fig. 3), comprising:
processing circuitry (Fig. 3, includes units of apparatus 20 as processing circuity) configured to:
compute, for each scan line of a plurality of scan lines in the imaging field of view, a corresponding depth of field of the scan line, based on an ultrasonic image of the region generated by the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (see col. 9, lines 27-31 – “However, effects similar to those described above can also be obtained when this operation is applied to linear Scan operation in which ultrasound Scanning line intervals remain unchanged in a short-distance region and long-distance region [depths of field of scan lines].”);
compute a corrected transmission voltage that makes the depths of field of the plurality of scan lines uniform (see col. 12, lines 13-22 – “A transmission/reception control circuit 13 changes the ultrasound transmission conditions in accordance with the position of each local position (transmission focus point) so as to almost equalize the degrees of dynamic influences on the respective local regions, i.e., sound pressures on the respective local regions and the degrees of collapse of microbubbles in the respective local regions. Typical transmission conditions that can be adjusted include the driving voltage [corrected transmission voltage] for each transducer…”).
Kamiyama teaches adjusting transmission voltage to make the depth of scan lines uniform (Fig. 8), and it is inherent to configure the system with predetermined transmission voltage, adjust the transmission voltage of the predetermined transmission voltage to generate corrected transmission voltage, then transmit an ultrasound beam based on the corrected (adjusted) transmission voltage, but does not explicitly teach transmitting an ultrasound beam based on computed corrected transmission voltage.
Whereas, Chomas, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches execute control to transmit an ultrasonic beam based on the computed corrected transmission voltage (Fig. 4, "set transmit power" act 44 as transmit ultrasound beam based on corrected transmit voltage; see para. 0036 – “The transmit voltage for each element of an array or transmit aperture is set to have the desired transmit power for the element or for the array.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified adjusting transmission voltage to make the depth of scan lines uniform, as disclosed in Kamiyama, by transmitting an ultrasound beam based on computed corrected transmission voltage, as disclosed in Chomas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a substantially uniform intensity at a focal location or other location following a parameter change, more consistent contrast agent imaging is provided, as taught in Chomas (see para. 0047).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of Chomas, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Silberman et al. {US 20190307428 Al, published October 10, 2019), hereinafter referred to as Silberman.
Regarding claim 2, Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches transmitting an ultrasonic beam based on the computed corrected transmission voltage, but does not explicitly teach setting a pulse repetition frequency according to the corrected transmission voltage.
Whereas, Silberman, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, for each scan line of the plurality of scan lines, a pulse repetition frequency according to the corrected transmission voltage (see para. 0057 - "The set of imaging parameter values that enables the ultrasound system to collect ultrasound image at lower power may include, for example, a lower pulse repetition frequency (PRF), lower frame rate, shorter receive interval, reduced number of transmits per image, and lower pulser voltage.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified transmitting an ultrasonic beam based on the computed corrected transmission voltage, as disclosed in Kamiyama in view of Chomas, by setting a pulse repetition frequency according to the corrected transmission voltage, as disclosed in Silberman. One of ordinary skill in the a rt would have been motivated to make this modification in order to conserve power while detecting whether the ultrasound system has begun imaging the subject after not imaging the subject for a threshold period of time, as taught in Silberman (see para. 0057).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of Chomas, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Poland (US 20200037984 A1, published February 6, 2020), hereinafter referred to as Poland.
Regarding claim 4, Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches transmitting an ultrasonic beam based on the computed corrected transmission voltage, but does not explicitly teach computing the corrected transmission voltage such that the depth difference is equaI to or below a threshold and is not beyond an upper limit of acoustic power transmitted to a subject.
Whereas, Poland, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, for each scan line of the plurality of scan lines,
compute a difference between the corresponding depth of field of the scan line and a reference value (see para. 0054 - "Therefore, the transmit beams shown in FIG. 5 are for convenience shown with centered steering, but are taken to be typicaI for any scan line steering angle. The distance between the ultrasound probes 510,520, 530 and the focus zones 512, 522, 532 can be designated as the focal depth." Focal zone is a difference between a depth and a reference value, where the reference value is the max depth), and
compute the corrected transmission voltage such that the difference is equal to or below a threshold and is not beyond an upper limit of acoustic power transmitted to a subject (see para. 0054 "The transmit focal depths A, B, C [difference below a threshold, where the threshold is the max depth] may be predetermined or predefined depths whose acoustic power characteristics are carefully measured and limited [below upper limit of acoustic power] in accordance with FDA regulation.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified transmitting an ultrasonic beam based on the computed corrected transmission voltage, as disclosed in Kamiyama in view of Chomas, by computing the corrected transmission voltage such that the depth difference is equal to or below a threshold and is not beyond an upper limit of acoustic power transmitted to a subject, as disclosed in Poland. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent heat damage to tissue.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of Chomas, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Loftman et al. (US 20030236459 A1, published December 25, 2003) and C. Shen et al, “Ultrasound Ultrafast Power Doppler Imaging with High Signal-to-Noise Ratio by Temporal Multiply-and-Sum (TMAS) Autocorrelation”, Sensors, vol. 22, no. 8349, pp. 1-18, Aug. 2022, hereinafter referred to as Loftman and Shen, respectively.
Regarding claim 5, Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches computing a depth of a region of interest, but does not explicitly teach computing a signaI to noise ratio of a region of interest.
Whereas, Loftman, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, for each scan line of the plurality of scan lines, compute a maximum depth in a unit region set in the ultrasonic image as the corresponding depth of field of the scan line included in the unit region (see para. 0044 - "If at least one region in each of three laterally spaced columns and in each of three depth spaced rows are associated with tissue (i.e. at least six regions with specific distribution exist) [where the max depth of each region can be determined], a sufficient number of tissue regions exist.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified computing a depth of a region of interest, as disclosed in Kamiyama in view of Chomas, by also computing a signal to noise ratio of a region of interest, as disclosed in Loftman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the gain based on the contrast agent image may be optimized to provide maximum sensitivity, as taught in Loftman (see para. 0008).
Kamiyama in view of Chomas and Loftman teaches computing a signal to noise ratio of a region of interest, and it is inherent to have upper and lower thresholds to differentiate between different tissue types, but does not explicitly teach an image signal-to-noise ratio equal to or below a first threshold and is a region in which a living tissue is visualized.
Whereas, Shen, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the unit region has an image signal-to-noise ratio equal to or below a first threshold and is a region in which a living tissue is visualized (see pg. 7, para. 1 – “Then, the compounded HRI [high-resolution images] are SVD [singular-value decomposition] were clutter filtered with the low-order and high-order thresholds [lower and upper thresholds] of (6, 30) and (10, 40), respectively, in the phantom and in vivo experiments.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified computing a signal to noise ratio of a region of interest, as disclosed in Kamiyama in view of Chomas and Loftman, by also having an image signal-to-noise ratio equal to or below a first threshold and is a region in which a living tissue is visualized, as disclosed in Shen. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to remove the stationary tissue and noise signals and calculate power Doppler images, as taught in Shen (see pg. 6, para. 1).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Loftman further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
calculate an average value and a variance value of pixel values in the unit region set in the ultrasonic image (see para. 0060- "As another example, the number of regions [unit region] where the average signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold and the local variance of the contrast agent data is within a threshold range of values indicates the presence of contrast agents.");
compute the image signaI-to-noise ratio from the calculated average value (see para. 0060 - "As another example, the number of regions where the average signal-to-noise ratio [average pixel value in unit region] is above a threshold and the local variance of the contrast agent data [variance pixel values in unit region] is within a threshold range of values indicates the presence of contrast agents."); and
determine that the living tissue is visualized in the unit region when the computed image signal to-noise ratio is equal to or above a second threshold and the calculated variance value belongs to a predetermined range (see para. 0060- "As another example, the number of regions where the average signal-to-noise ratio is above a threshold and the local variance of the contrast agent data is within a threshold range of values indicates the presence of contrast agents."; see para. 0036- "Thus, the SNR binary image identifies regions of the image frame that have a sufficiently high SN R to be candidates for soft tissue image signals.").
The motivation for claim 6 was shown previously in claim 5.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of Chomas, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Hao (US 20100240992 A1, published September 23, 2010), hereinafter referred to as Hao.
Regarding claim 7, Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches computing a depth of a region of interest, but does not explicitly teach computing a depth based on a graph of signal-to-noise ratio versus depth.
Whereas, Hao, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to, for each sea n line of the plurality of sea n lines, compute, as the corresponding depth of field, a depth corresponding to an intersection between a straight line or a curve and a first threshold of a signaI-to-noise ratio in an image of a unit region set in the ultrasonic image, the straight line or the curve being extrapolated with respect to a graph of the signaI-to-noise ratio versus a depth corresponding to the unit region (see para. 0038 - "The calculated SN Rs at different depths (in this example, 6 different depths) are fitted with a least square curve 502 as shown in FIG. 5, then com pa red with a curve 501 which is a least square fit of the six pre-stored SNR thresholds.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified computing a depth of a region of interest, as disclosed in Kamiyama in view of Chomas, by also computing a depth based on a graph of signal-to-noise ratio versus depth, as disclosed in Hao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adjust imaging parameters based on signal to noise ratio, as taught in Hao (Fig. 4; see para. 0038).
Allowable Subject Matter
As aIIowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with aII formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.lll(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claim 3 is allowed.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of alIowable subject matter:
For claim 3, no prior art teaches the combination of limitations of setting, as the pulse repetition frequency,
(a) a value obtained by multiplying (1) a square root of a ratio of the corrected transmission voltage to a previous transmission voltage used to acquire the ultrasonic image by (2) a previous pulse repetition frequency used to acquire the ultrasonic image, or
(b) a preset maximum pulse repetition frequency, whichever of (a) and (b) is smaller, as disclosed in the applicant's specification (see para. 0056-0057) and Fig. 2, without hindsight reasoning.
Any combination of the prior art of record does not explicitly teach this limitation as the limitation in combination with all of the other elements of the claim is not obvious or similar.
The closest prior art found to teach the limitations is Silberman, which teaches setting a pulse repetition frequency based on transmit voltage (see para. 0057), but does not explicitly teach setting, as the pulse repetition frequency, (a) a value obtained by multiplying (1) a square root of a ratio of the corrected transmission voltage to a previous transmission voltage used to acquire the ultrasonic image by (2) a previous pulse repetition frequency used to acquire the ultrasonic image, or (b) a preset maximum pulse repetition frequency, whichever of (a) and (b) is smaller, without hindsight reasoning.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Amemiya (US 20050126292 A1, published June 16, 2005) discloses an ultrasonic probe scans a uniform field of view in a linear scan.
Wu et al. (US 20090137904 A1, published May 28, 2009) discloses where in a linear scan, the density of acoustic lines is uniform across a frame from a near field to a far field.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798