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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 27-28 are added, and claims 1, 3, and 5-14, and 21-28 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/08/22026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/02/2026 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 Guo is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 8, 12, and 13-14 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claims 1 and 21, reference to Rothberg is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 7 and 25 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Klepper is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 13 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
However, for claims 3 and 22 the applicant argues “While Guo states generally that different frequency combinations may be used, such a generic statement does not constitute a teaching or suggestion of the specific claimed ratio.” (see pg. 14, para. 4 of applicant’s remarks), and the examiner disagrees.
Guo teaches different frequency combinations of the center row and the outer rows, so under broadest reasonable interpretation, the different frequency combination would include where the center row frequency is twice the outer rows frequency (see col. 7, lines 30-34 "In addition, although 3.5 MHZ and 10 MHz transducers are referred to, other frequency combinations are possible.”).
For claim 6 and 24, the applicant argues “Freiburger does not suggest or motivate modifying the cited references to provide a transducer array having physically distinct rows operating at different frequencies in a coordinated manner to achieve broadband harmonic imaging” (see pg. 16, para. 2), and the examiner disagrees.
The claim does not recite what is “super broadband” harmonic imaging, only that super broadband harmonic imaging is performed “by controlling the center row of transducer elements to perform a receive operation while controlling the two or more outer rows of transducer elements to perform transmit operations”. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Freiburger teaches super broadband harmonic imaging, 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, 3, 5, 11-12, 14, and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo et al. (US 6160340 A, published December 12, 2000) in view of Chiao et al. (US 5882309 A, published March 16, 1999) and Yano (US 4664122 A, published May 12, 1987), hereinafter referred to as Guo, Chiao, and Yano, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claim 21, Guo teaches an ultrasound device comprising:
an array having a center row of individual transducer elements (Fig. 2, center row 14 of transducer elements),
each individual transducer element of the center row having a first width in an elevation direction (Fig. 2, center row 14 of transducer elements having a width) and being configured to operate at a first frequency and two or more outer rows of individual transducer elements (see col. 5, lines 61-65 – “In a preferred embodiment, the center row 14 of piezoelectric members 28 generates ultrasonic energy at a higher center frequency than the ultrasonic energy that is generated by the two outer rows 12 and 16 of piezoelectric members 26 and 30.”),
each individual transducer element of at least each row of the two or more outer rows that is adjacent to the center row (Fig. 2, each transducer element of outer rows 12 and 16 are adjacent to transducer elements of center row 14) having a second or other respective widths in the elevation direction (Fig. 3, outer rows 12 and 16 having a width) and being configured to operate at a second or other frequencies different than the first frequency (see col. 5, lines 61-65 – “In a preferred embodiment, the center row 14 of piezoelectric members 28 generates ultrasonic energy at a higher center frequency than the ultrasonic energy that is generated by the two outer rows 12 and 16 of piezoelectric members 26 and 30.”),
wherein the first width (center row) is different and smaller than the second width (outer rows) (see col. 6, line 65 to col. 7, line 1 – “…overall width: 3–4 mm…center row width: 0.5 mm; outer row widths: 1.25-1.75 mm…”),
the center row being between the two or more outer rows with each of two opposite sides of the center row being adjacent to at least one row of the two or more outer rows along an azimuth direction, perpendicular to the elevation direction (Fig. 2, center row 14 adjacent and between outer rows 12 and 16 along azimuth direction),
wherein element pitch of transducer elements in the center row is equal to element pitch of transducer elements in rows of the two or more outer rows that are adjacent to the center row (Fig. 2, distance between transducer elements of array (pitch) are equal, which is inherent and known in the art); and
a controller coupled to the array (see col. 4, lines 56-58 – “As shown in FIG. 2, the center row transducer elements can be controlled independently of the outer row transducer elements.” inherent and known in the art to control an ultrasound transducer array via a controller) and configured to control the center row of transducer elements and two or more outer rows of transducer elements to operate at a same time or at different times (Fig. 4; see col. 7, lines 38-40 and 49-53 – “In a step 102, acoustic energy is generated from the center row transducer at a center row frequency…In a step 108, acoustic energy is generated from the first and second outer row transducers, where the acoustic energy generated from the center row has a higher frequency than the acoustic energy generated from the first and Second outer rows.”).
Guo teaches an array, and it is known in the art to couple lens to an array, but does not explicitly teach an array coupled to lens.
Whereas, Chiao, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a lens (Fig. 5A, lens 36); and an array coupled to the lens (Fig. 5A, element rows 12a-12e of array 10D of Fig. 5B coupled to lens 36).
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 an array, as disclosed in Guo, by having lens coupled to the array, as disclosed in Chiao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to substantially increase the depth of field, providing uniform resolution and contrast over the entire imaging range of the probe, as taught in Chiao (see col. 7, lines 6-9).
Guo in view of Chiao teaches operating rows of an array, and operating an array as a linear array or a phased array is inherent and known in the art, but does not explicitly teach the rows operating as a linear array and a phased array.
Whereas, Yano, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein, during operation, the center row operates as a linear array and a pair of rows of the two or more outer rows operate as a phased array (Fig. 2; see col. 2, lines 56-59 "This arrangement allows to obtain a tomogram of the object by the subarray A [center row] responsive to the electronic linear scan [linear array], and diagnostic information such as a blood flow by the subarrays B1 and B2."; see col. 3, lines 32-36 " ultrasonic beams4 and 5 can be transmitted at large deflection angles 61 and 62 by delay-driving [phased array] the peripheral [outer rows] transducer elements. The beams 4and 5 are used as ultrasonic Doppler beams for measuring a blood flow rate.").
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 operating the rows of an array, as disclosed in Guo in view of Chiao, by the rows operating as a linear array and a phased array, as disclosed in Yano. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to display a blood flow pattern waveform at a measuring point designated on the B mode image, as taught in Yano (see col. 3, lines 45-48).
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 22, Guo further teaches wherein the first frequency is twice the second frequency (see col. 6, lines 46-47 "center row transducer elements: 10 MHz; outer row transducer elements: 8 MHz"; see col. 7, lines 30-34 "In addition, although 3.5 MHZ and 10 MHz transducers are referred to, other frequency combinations are possible [includes where the center row (first) frequency is twice the outer rows (second) frequency].")
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 23, Yano further teaches wherein the controller controls the array in a plurality of modes in which either the center row of transducer elements or the two or more outer rows of transducer elements is operating or both the center row of transducer elements and the two or more outer rows of transducer elements are operating at the same time based on which mode of the plurality of modes is being used (see col. 5, lines 39-43 "The ultrasonic diagnosis apparatus can be operated to simultaneously acquire tomogram [via central subarray A, center row] and blood flow information [via peripheral subarrays B1 and B2, outer rows] of the object, or to acquire only the tomogram or the blood flow information.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Guo further teaches wherein each of the transducer elements is part of an acoustic stack that includes a backing block through which at least a signal coupled to said each transducer element traverses (Fig. 1; see col. 5, lines 1-2 "The piezoelectric members are in contact with a backing member 32." Where each of the transducer elements is part of an acoustic stack that includes a backing block is inherent and known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Guo further teaches wherein each of the transducer elements is part of an acoustic stack, and stacks associated with transducer elements of the center row have different focal depths and beam characteristics than stacks associated with transducer elements of the two or more outer rows (see col. 6, lines 1-8 – “As stated above, higher frequency ultrasonic energy pro vides higher image resolution in a near field, while lower frequency ultrasonic energy provides a deeper focus into objects, such as the human body. By utilizing different center frequencies for the center row 14 and the outer rows 12 and 16 in the 1.5D array, the benefits of both the higher and lower frequency ultrasonic energy can be selectively achieved.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Guo further teaches wherein each of the transducer elements comprises a piezoelectric element (Fig. 1; see col. 4, lines 66-67 – “Each transducer element in the 1.5D array 10 includes a piezoelectric member 26, 28 and 30…”).
The motivation for claims 5 and 23 was shown previously in claim 1 and 21.
Claims 6 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, as applied to claim 5 and 23 above, and in further view of Freiburger et al. (US 20040054285A1, published March 18, 2004), hereinafter referred to as Freiburger.
Regarding claim 6, Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 5 and 23 above, respectively.
Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches operating rows of an array, but does not explicitly teach the rows operating in transmit and receive operations.
Whereas, Freiburger, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the center row of transducer elements and two or more outer rows of transducer elements independently in one of the modes to operate at the same time to obtain signals for performing super broadband harmonic imaging by controlling the center row of transducer elements to perform a receive operation while controlling the two or more outer rows of transducer elements to perform transmit operations (see para. 0033 "Any of various combinations of transmit and receive apertures may be used, such as transmitting from three rows and receiving on the center row and then transmitting from two outer rows and receiving on the two outer rows.").
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 operating rows of an array, as disclosed in Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, by having the rows operating in transmit and receive operations, as disclosed in Freiburger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to compound data frames responsive to different elevation apertures and reduce speckle, as taught in Freiburger (see para. 0005).
Claims 7 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, as applied to claim 5 and 23 above, and in further view of Rothberg (US 20170360413 A1, published December 21, 2017), hereinafter referred to as Rothberg.
Regarding claims 7 and 25, Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 5 and 23 above.
Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches a plurality of modes, but does not explicitly teach where the plurality of modes includes overlapping bandwidths.
Whereas, Rothberg, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the plurality of modes includes:
a first mode in which the controller causes both the center row and the two or more outer rows of transducer elements to perform both transmit and receive operations to provide signals for full aperture imaging on an area of bandwidth produced by both that overlaps (see para. 0022 – “As another example, the first frequency range may be contained entirely within a range of 1-5 MHz, the second frequency range may be contained entirely within a range of 3-7 MHz…” bandwidths overlap at 3-5 MHz);
a second mode in which the controller causes the center row of transducer elements to perform a receive operation and the two or more outer rows of transducer elements to perform transmit and receive operations to provide signals for Tissue Harmonic Imaging (THI) (see para. 0054 – “In other implementations, some of the elements in the array(s) 102 may be used only to transmit acoustic signals and other elements in the same array(s) 102 may be simultaneously used only to receive acoustic signals.”);
a third mode in which the controller causes both the center row and the two or more outer rows of transducer elements to perform both transmit and receive operations to provide signals for super broadband full aperture THI (see para. 0022 – “As another example, the first frequency range may be contained entirely within a range of 1-5 MHz, the second frequency range may be contained entirely within a range of 3-7 MHz, and the third frequency range may be contained entirely within a range of 5-10 MHz.” range of 1-10 MHz as “super broadband”).
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 a plurality of modes, as disclosed in Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, by having the plurality of modes include overlapping bandwidths, as disclosed in Rothberg. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to operate in multiple modes associated with different and medically-relevant frequency ranges by generating low-frequency and high-frequency acoustic waveforms having a broad bandwidth, as taught in Rothberg (see para. 0035).
Claims 8-10 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, as applied to claim 5 and 23 above, and in further view of Adams (US 20110046484A1, published February 24, 2011), hereinafter referred to as Adams.
Regarding claims 8 and 26, Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 5 and 23 above.
Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches operating the array in a plurality of modes, but does not explicitly teach a user interface to enable a user to cause the controller to switch between modes of the plurality of modes.
Whereas, Adams, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a user interface to enable a user to cause the controller to switch between modes of the plurality of modes (Fig. 1; see para. 0035 "For example, an operator may turn a dial or interact with a graphical user interface element to indicate to the beamformer controller 18 which transducer elements 38 are to be decoupled or used in the active aperture.").
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 operating the array in a plurality of modes, as disclosed in Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, by having a user interface to enable a user to cause the controller to switch between modes of the plurality of modes, as disclosed in Adams. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve workflow and efficiency of operating the ultrasound device, as taught in Adams (see para. 0005-0006).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Guo further teaches a probe enclosure that contains the array (see col. 1, lines 34-36 – “The acoustic imaging transducer is often packaged within a portable or handheld device…” where a probe containing an array is inherent and known in the art), and
Adams further teaches wherein the user interface comprises one or more buttons, one or more sensors, one or more switches coupled to the probe enclosure, or voice control to switch between the modes (Fig. 1; see para. 0035 "For example, an operator may turn a dial or interact with a graphical user interface element to indicate to the beam former controller 18 which transducer elements 38 are to be decoupled or used in the active aperture.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Adams further teaches wherein the user interface comprises one or more buttons, one or more sensors, or one or more switches coupled to an ultrasound system or voice control communicably coupled to the array to switch between the modes (Fig. 1; see para. 0030 – “At step 72, a user mode selection input is received from the user by means of a mode selection switch 20, graphical user interface, or other input means."; see para. 0035 "For example, an operator may turn a dial or interact with a graphical user interface element to indicate to the beam former controller 18 which transducer elements 38 are to be decoupled or used in the active aperture.").
The motivation for claims 9-10 was shown previously in claim 8.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Klepper (US 20060058672 A1, published March 16, 2006), hereinafter referred to as Klepper.
Regarding claim 13, Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above, and
Guo further teaches one or more system connectors to interface signals from each of the transducer elements of the center row of transducer elements and the two or more outer rows of transducer elements to an ultrasound system (see col. 4, lines 51-56 – “…the transducer elements of the 1.5D array have common connections among the outer row transducer elements, as shown by the center row connection 74 and common outer row connection 76 of FIG. 2, where FIG. 2 is a plan view of the 1.5D transducer array of FIG. 1.”).
Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches system connectors, but does not explicitly teach the system connectors are tuning inductors.
Whereas, Klepper, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the one or more system connectors comprising first and second sets of tuning inductors, the first set of tuning inductors for interfacing signals from the transducer elements of the center row of transducer elements and the second set of tuning inductors for interfacing signals from the transducer elements of the two or more outer rows of transducer elements using tuning inductors with different inductor values than tuning inductors of the first set of tuning inductors (see para. 0027 – “The tuning inductors 16 are series inductors positioned within the transducer 12, a connector between the transducer 12 and the beamformer 18 or within the beamformer 18. In one embodiment, different tuning inductors 16 are provided for different ones of the elements 14.”).
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 system connectors, as disclosed in Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, by having the system connectors as tuning inductors, as disclosed in Klepper. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to perform low and high frequencies of operation, as taught in Klepper (see para. 0027).
Claims 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, as applied to claim 3 and 22 above, and in further view of Zhao et al. (US 20230148869 A1, published May 18, 2023 with a priority date of May 22, 2020), hereinafter referred to as Zhao.
Regarding claim 27, and similarly for claim 28, Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 3 and 22 above, respectively.
Guo in view of Chiao and Yano teaches the pitch of the transducer elements, but does not explicitly teach different pitches of the transducer elements.
Whereas, Zhao, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the element pitch of the transducer elements in the center row and the element pitch of the transducer elements in the rows of the two or more outer rows that are adjacent to the center row are each approximately equal to one acoustic wavelength at the first frequency and approximately equal to one-half acoustic wavelength at the second frequency (see para. 0008 – “The array elements may be arranged in an array with various suitable spacing from one on another. For example, in some variations, at least one row has a pitch that is larger than half of a wavelength of a center frequency of the transducer (e.g., in the row). In some variations, at least one row may have a pitch that is smaller than or equal to half of a wavelength of a center frequency of the transducer (e.g., in the row.)”).
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 pitch of the transducer elements, as disclosed in Guo in view of Chiao and Yano, by having different pitches of the transducer elements, as disclosed in Zhao. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to advantageously perform both imaging of superficial tissues and imaging of deep tissues, as taught in Zhao (see para. 0073).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Taniguchi (US 20150289849 A1, published October 15, 2015) discloses the frequency band where the frequency band contained in the transmission/reception frequency band at -20 dB of the ultrasound probe and the frequency band at -20 dB of the driving waveform overlap each other corresponds to the frequency band contained in the transmission/reception frequency band at -20 dB of the ultrasound probe.
Hajati (US 20140117812 A1, published May 1, 2014) discloses where the bands do overlap, for example where the membrane dimensioning and layout are also suitable for super-wide bandwidth operation, some membranes may oscillate in the second mode within the transmit frequency band and some membranes may oscillate in the first mode within the receive frequency band such that the TX and RX bands are not exclusive one resonant mode.
Zhao et al. (US 20180015504 A1, published January 18, 2018) discloses spacing between two adjacent elements may be typically either one wave length for a linear array or one - half wavelength for a phased array.
Abend et al. (US 20040267127 A1, published December 30, 2004) discloses providing an array of sonic transducer elements, wherein the element spacing in the array is greater than, equal or less than a half wavelength of the sonic energy produced by the elements.
Mason (US 5931785 A, published August 3, 1999) discloses the associated elements of the central segment of the array has an effective pitch that is less than the effective pitch of the associated elements in the outer segments.
Hyuga (US 20080009741 A1, published January 10. 2008) discloses an ultrasonic transducer array, in which plural ultrasonic transducers having at least two kinds of shapes are arranged, includes a first ultrasonic transducer, and a second ultrasonic transducer having a different shape from that of the first ultrasonic transducer, and an area of an ultrasonic transmission/reception face of the second ultrasonic transducer is substantially equal to an area of an ultrasonic transmission/reception face of the first ultrasonic transducer.
Daft et al. (US 20110306886 A1, published December 15, 2011) discloses central row of elements is configured for transmit operation, other rows adjacent to central row of elements is configured for only receiving, and the other rows are wider than the central row (Fig. 4).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights