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 .
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 3 (now incorporated into claim 1) is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Zhang. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Response to Amendment
Claims 2-3 are cancelled, and claims 1 and 4-9 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments filed 06/11/2026 to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 03/11/2026.
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 July19, 2005) in view of Chomas et al. (US 20060030779 A1, published February 9, 2006), and Zhang et al. (US 20090062654 A1, published March 5, 2009), hereinafter referred to as Kamiyama, Chomas, and Zhang, 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).
Kamiyama in view of Chomas teaches setting a transmission frequency based on transmission voltage, but does not explicitly teach setting a pulse repetition frequency.
Whereas, Zhang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set, for each scan line of the plurality of scan lines, as a pulse repetition frequency (a) a value obtained a square root of a ratio of the corrected transmission voltage to a previous transmission voltage used to acquire the ultrasonic image (parameter L) by (2) a previous pulse repetition frequency (PRFold) used to acquire the ultrasonic image (see para. 0037-0038 – “In one embodiment, adjusting at least one of the Doppler imaging parameters based on the boundaries of the blood flow signal comprises adjusting the pulse repetition frequency and the baseline based on the following equations: PRFnew = … PRFold / L …Eq. 1… where, PRFold and PRFnew are the pulse repetition frequency and the corresponding adjusted pulse repetition frequency, respectively…”), or
(b) a preset maximum pulse repetition frequency (see para. 0050 – “…the pulse repetition frequency is set to the maximum pulse repetition frequency at a current detection depth, which is then provided to an ultrasound transmitting unit…”),
whichever of (a) or (b) is smaller (Fig. 3, set PRF to “adjust PRF and baseline based on the boundaries of the signal” 345, “adjust PRF down to the minimum value…” 350 as PRF value obtained, or “remain PRF and baseline unchanged” 340, from “adjust PRF to the maximum value at the current detection depth” 305 as preset max PRF).
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 setting a transmission frequency based on transmission voltage, as disclosed in Kamiyama in view of Chomas, by also setting a pulse repetition frequency, as disclosed in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce computational complexity and improve operability and stability, as taught in Zhang (see para. 0029).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiyama in view of Chomas and Zhang, 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 and Zhang teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas and Zhang 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 equal 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 typical for any scan line steering angle. The distance between the ultrasound probes 510,520, 530 and the focus zones 512, 522, 532can 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] maybe 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 and Zhang, 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 and Zhang, 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 and Zhang teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas and Zhang teaches computing a depth of a region of interest, but does not explicitly teach computing a signal 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 scanlines, 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 "Ifat 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 and Zhang, 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, Zhang, 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, Zhang, 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 signal-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 and Zhang, 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 and Zhang teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Kamiyama in view of Chomas and Zhang 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 signal-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 signal-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 and Zhang, 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).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Miyaki (US 20070167770 A1, published July 19, 2007) discloses setting the actual repetition frequency fr using the calculated reference repetition frequency fi and a variable coefficient parameter α.
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
Prosecution Insights