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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 02/13/2026 has been entered.
Acknowledgement of Amendment
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 02/13/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 13-14 are amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments, 35 U.S.C. 102 and 35 U.S.C. 103 sections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9-13, filed 02/13/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Based upon Chiang and Salgaonkar
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 9-10, 12-16 and 19-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chiang et al., US 2021/0015456 Al ("Chiang") in view of Salgaonkar et al., US 2020/0315572 Al ("Salgaonkar"). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection of these claims.
Independent Claims 1,12 and 20
With respect to independent claim 1, Applicant respectfully submits that Chiang in view of Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest at least a first housing separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing.
In the Office Action (at pages 11-12), the Examiner admits that Chiang fails to disclose these features and relies instead on Salgaonkar to compensate for its defects. Applicants respectfully disagree.
Salgaonkar merely states that "computer system 101 may be connected ... to other
machines, such as imaging device 102 and workstation 103," and that "the imaging device 102 is external to or within the probe 111." See Salgaonkar at, e.g., paragraph [0020]. Nowhere does Salgaonkar expressly disclose any housing, let alone a first housing within which the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed, a second housing that encloses the main console or a structural relationship in which the first housing is separate from and external to the second housing. Merely listing functional components of an ultrasound system does not inherently disclose their physical packaging or enclosure. Additionally, although Salgaonkar describes the imaging device 102 as an ultrasound system, it fails to identify any of its components as a front- end circuit, or that such circuitry is disposed within a housing, or that the housing is separate from and external to a main console housing.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges that Chiang fails to disclose “a first housing separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing”.
Furthermore, the examiner respectfully agrees that Salgoankar merely states the “computer system 101 may be connected […] to other machines, such as imaging device 102 and workstation 103,” and that “the imaging device 102 is external to or within the probe 111” (see Salgoankar: [0020]). Furthermore, the examiner concurs that nowhere is Salgaonkar discloses any housing, let alone a first housing within which the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed, a second housing that encloses the main console or a structural relationship in which the housing is separate from an external to the second housing.
The examiner recognizes that merely listing functional components of an ultrasound system does not inherently disclose their physical packaging or enclosure. Additionally, although Salgaonkar describes that imaging device 102 as an ultrasound system, it fails to identify any of its components as a front-end circuit, or that such circuitry is disposed within a housing, or that the housing is separate from and external to a main console housing.
On page 12 of the Office Action, the Examiner further asserted the following (emphasis added):
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound modular front-end and the
ultrasound imaging system of Chiang such that the first housing is separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console and the main console is enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing as disclosed in Salgaonkar in order to allow for different modular front-ends (i.e. probes) to be utilized to obtain ultrasound data. When the first housing (i.e. containing the modular-front end) and the second housing (i.e. containing the main console) are separate from and external to each other, these components can be connected and/or disconnected depending on a specific ultrasound probe/modality a user desires to employ when examining a patient. Therefore, modifying the ultrasound modular front end and the ultrasound imaging system of Chiang such that the first housing is separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console and the main console is enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing as disclosed in Salgaonkar would yield the predictable result of allowing different modular front-ends to be attached and utilized depending on an imaging probe/modality a user desires to utilize when examining a patient.
Applicants respectfully disagree. In determining obviousness, both pre-AIA and AIA § 103 expressly require considering the claimed invention "as a whole." The question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious. See MPEP§2141.02 (emphasis added). Focusing the § 103 inquiry on a particular aspect of the invention that differs from the prior art improperly disregards the "as a whole" statutory mandate. Id. See also Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524, 1530 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 357 F.3d 1270, 1275 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The "as a whole" instruction in title 35 prevents evaluation of the invention part by part. ... This form of hindsight reasoning, using the invention as a roadmap to find its prior art components, would discount the value of combining various existing features or principles in a new way to achieve a new result - often the very definition of invention."); Princeton Biochemicals, Inc. v. Coulter, Inc., 411 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 754 F.3d 952 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Applicants respectfully submit that the Examiner is improperly using the invention as a roadmap to combine various features taught by Chiang and Salgaonkar to teach the claim features. Such hindsight reasoning disregards the "as a whole" instruction in 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner respectfully agrees that in determining obviousness, both pre-AIA and AIA 103 expressly require considering the claimed invention “as a whole” and that the question under 35 U.S.C. 103 is not whether the differences themselves would have been obvious, but whether the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious (see MPEP 2141.02). Focusing the 103 inquiry on a particular aspect of the invention that differs from the prior art improperly disregards the “as a whole” statutory mandate.
The examiner acknowledges that the final rejection of 12/19/2025 utilizes hindsight reasoning to combine Chiang and Salgaonkar to teach the claim features and thus disregards the “as a whole” instruction in 35 U.S.C. 103.
Similarly, with respect to claim 12, Applicants respectfully submit that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest a main console enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing and communicatively coupled to the at least one modular front-end via the at least one communication interface, ... wherein the main console and the at least one modular front-end are physically separated.
Additionally, with respect to claim 20, Applicants respectfully submit that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing and the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing.
Consequently, the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest these claims. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully ask the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of these claims.
Regarding claim 12, the examiner respectfully agrees that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest a main console enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing and communicatively coupled to the at least one module front-end via the at least one communication interface, […] wherein the main console and the at least one modular front-end are physically separated.
Regarding claim 20, the examiner respectfully acknowledges that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing and the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from an external to the first housing.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection of 12/19/2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 102 section below.
Dependent Claims 2-7, 9-10,13-16 and 19
The Applicant argues that these claims ultimately depend upon independent claim 1 or 12. As discussed above, claims 1 and 12 are allowable. It is axiomatic that any dependent claim which depends from an allowable base claim is also allowable. Additionally, some or all of these claims may also be allowable for additional independent reasons.
The examiner respectfully notes that dependent claims 2-7, 9-10, 13-16 and 19 are subject to the new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 102 section below.
With respect to claim 13, Applicants respectfully submit that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest wherein the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe, wherein the second housing of the main console is separate from and external to the multiple first housings. In the Office Action (at pages 16-17), the Examiner relies on Chiang to disclose multiple modular front-ends. More particularly, the Examiner appears to equate the multiple modular front-ends to the ultrasound engine 108, interface circuitry 1020 and the transducer/probe. Applicants respectively disagree.
The ultrasound engine 108 and the computer motherboard 106 is provided as a single board complete ultrasound system disposed within the same housing 102, not enclosed in housings separate from and external to each other. See Chiang at, e.g., paragraphs [0143], [0220], FIG. 1A. The circuit components of the probe are enclosed by the probe housing itself, which is not separate from and external to the probe housing as recited in this claim. As for the interface circuitry 1020, Chiang describes providing only one interface circuitry 1020, not multiple modular front-ends respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest wherein the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe, wherein the second housing of the main console is separate from and external to the multiple first housings. The examiner recognizes that in the Office Action (at pages 16-17), the Examiner relies on Chiang to disclose multiple modular front-ends. More particularly, the Examiner appears to equate the multiple modular front-ends to the ultrasound engine 108, interface circuitry 1020 and the transducer/probe.
The examiner agrees that the ultrasound engine 108 and the computer motherboard 106 are provided as a single board complete ultrasound system disposed within the same housing 102, not enclosed in housings separate from and external to each other. See Chiang at, e.g., paragraphs [0143], [0220], FIG. 1A. The circuit components of the probe are enclosed by the probe housing itself, which is not separate from and external to the probe housing as recited in this claim. As for the interface circuitry 1020, Chiang describes providing only one interface circuitry 1020, not multiple modular front-ends respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection of 12/19/2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” and Yang et al. US 2020/0405266 A1 “Yang” as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
With respect to claim 14, Applicants respectfully submit that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest wherein the main console processes in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously.
On pages 17-18 of the Office Action, the Examiner relies on Chiang to disclose these features. Applicants respectfully disagree. Chiang at most describes simultaneous imaging modes and views. See Chiang at, e.g., paragraphs [0363], [0357], [0560], [0577] and [0580]. More particularly, Chiang discloses that a portable ultrasound system may provide "simultaneous 2-dimensional (2D mode) and M-mode imaging" and that Doppler modes may update multiple displays simultaneously. Id. These disclosures merely describe simultaneous imaging modes or display outputs, not processing in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously. Simultaneous views or displays relate to view generation and output, and does not imply simultaneous parallel front-end processing. For example, simultaneous views may be generated by post-processing of a single acquired data set. On the contrary, Chiang expressly teaches that the ultrasound engine 108, interface circuitry 1020 and transducer/probe are connected in series, and is silent on the main console processing in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously. See Chiang at, e.g., paragraph [0182]; FIG. 10B.
Accordingly, the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest these claims. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully ask the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of these claims.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges that the asserted combination of Chiang and Salgaonkar fails to teach or suggest wherein the main console processes in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously.
On pages 17-18 of the Office Action, the Examiner relies on Chiang to disclose these features. However, the examiner acknowledges that Chiang at most describes simultaneous imaging modes and views. See Chiang at, e.g., paragraphs [0363], [0357], [0560], [0577] and [0580]. More particularly, Chiang discloses that a portable ultrasound system may provide "simultaneous 2-dimensional (2D mode) and M-mode imaging" and that Doppler modes may update multiple displays simultaneously. Id. These disclosures merely describe simultaneous imaging modes or display outputs, not processing in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously. Simultaneous views or displays relate to view generation and output, and does not imply simultaneous parallel front-end processing. For example, simultaneous views may be generated by post-processing of a single acquired data set. On the contrary, Chiang expressly teaches that the ultrasound engine 108, interface circuitry 1020 and transducer/probe are connected in series, and is silent on the main console processing in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously. See Chiang at, e.g., paragraph [0182]; FIG. 10B.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the final rejection of 12/19/2025 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” and Yang et al. US 2020/0405266 A1 “Yang” as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Based upon Chiang, Salgaonkar and Gille
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Salgaonkar, further in view of Gille et al., WO 2007047457 A2 ("Gille"). Applicants respectfully traverses the rejection of these claims.
Dependent Claims 8 and 17
These claims ultimately depend upon independent claim 1 or 12. As discussed above, claims 1 and 12 are allowable. It is axiomatic that any dependent claim which depends from an allowable base claim is also allowable. Additionally, this claim may also be allowable for additional independent reasons.
The examiner respectfully notes that claims 8 and 17 are subject to the new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Based upon Chiang, Salgaonkar and Meurer
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chiang in view of Salgaonkar, further in view of Meurer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0380681 Al ("Meurer"). Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection of these claims.
Dependent Claims 11 and 18
These claims ultimately depend upon independent claim 1 or 12. As discussed above, claims 1 and 12 are allowable. It is axiomatic that any dependent claim which depends from an allowable base claim is also allowable. Additionally, this claim may also be allowable for additional independent reasons.
The examiner respectfully notes that claims 11 and 18 are subject to the new ground(s) of rejection made in view of Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-6, 12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann”.
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Halmann teaches “An ultrasound modular front-end, comprising:” (Claim 1) (“The probe 104 includes an analog front end that includes a transmit module (Tx module) 212 and a receive module (Rx module) 214. The transmit module 212 is controlled by the processing module 208 to drive the transducer elements 106 to emit ultrasound pulses. The receive module 214 receives the analog ultrasound signals generated by the transducer elements 106 and communicates the analog signals to the ADC module 210” [0039]; “The ADC module 210 converts the analog signals into digital ultrasound data signals prior to communicating the ultrasound data to the processing module 208” [0038]. Therefore, the probe 104 (see FIG. 2) includes an ultrasound modular front-end.);
“An ultrasound imaging system, comprising:” (Claim 12) (“FIG. 1 is a block diagram of one embodiment of a wireless ultrasound imaging system 100” [0020]; “The system 100 includes a processing subsystem 102 that wirelessly communicates with one or more ultrasound probes 104” [0021]. Therefore, Halmann discloses an ultrasound imaging system (see FIG. 1).);
“a first ultrasound front-end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data” (Claim 1); “at least one modular front-end disposed within a first housing, including at least one communication interface and a first ultrasound front-end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data” (Claim 12) (See [0039] and [0038] above and “The probe 104 includes an antenna 204 for wirelessly communicating data with the processing subsystem 102 (shown in FIG. 1)” [0036]. In this case, since the analog front end of the ultrasound probe 104 includes transmit module 212, receiver module 214 and ADC module 210, and the receiver module sends analog signals to the ADC module such that it can be converted to digital ultrasound data, the ultrasound modular front end includes a first ultrasound front-end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data. Furthermore, since the probe 104 includes an antenna 204 for wirelessly communicating data with the processing subsystem 102, the ultrasound imaging system includes at least one modular front-end disposed within a first housing (i.e. analog front end within probe 104), including at least one communication interface and a first ultrasound-front end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data (i.e. receiver module 214 in combination with ADC module 210).);
“at least one communication interface that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe and a main console, wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data” (Claim 1) (See [0036] above and “The processing subsystem 102 includes a processor 130 that performs one or more processing operations according to a plurality of selectable ultrasound modalities. The processor 130 can be provided as a logic based device, such as one or more computer processors or microprocessors. The processor 130 may form the control instructions for the probes 104” [0025]; “The processor 130 may perform additional or other processing on the acquired ultrasound data. Acquired ultrasound data may be processed and displayed in real-time during a scanning session as the ultrasound data is wirelessly received from the probes 104” [0029]. Therefore, the ultrasound modular front end includes at least one communication interface that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe (i.e. 104) and a main console (i.e. processing subsystem 102, specifically the processor 130 included therein), wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data (see [0029], [0038]).);
“a first housing separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing” (Claim 1); “a main console enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing and communicatively coupled to the at least one modular front-end via at least one communication interface, wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data, wherein the main console and the at least one modular front-end are physically separated” (Claim 12) (See FIG. 1 and FIG. 7 and “FIG. 2 is a block diagram of one embodiment of the ultrasound probe 104. The probe 104 includes a housing 200 with the transducer elements 106 held by the housing 200 along a transmission face 202 of the housing 200” [0035]. In this case, each of the probes 104 (i.e. each one representing a housing) shown in FIG. 1 is separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console (i.e. processing subsystem 102 containing the processor 130) because they communicate wirelessly with each other through the access point devices 110A-110C (see FIG. 1). Furthermore, FIG. 7 shows an embodiment featuring a probe 332 which is separate from a main console (i.e. including user interface 334 and display 336). Therefore, Halmann discloses that the ultrasound modular front end includes a first housing separate from and external to a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing (i.e. within probe 104, see FIG. 2). Furthermore, Halmann discloses that the ultrasound imaging system includes a main console (i.e. see processing subsystem 102/processor 103 in FIG. 1 and user interface 334/display 336 in FIG. 7) enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing (i.e. probe(s) 104) and communicatively coupled to the at least one modular front-end via at least one communication interface (i.e. antenna 204 and access point devices 110), wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data (See [0029]), wherein the main console and the at least one modular front-end are physically separated (i.e. by virtue of wireless communication between the probe 104 (i.e. containing the modular front-end) and the processing subsystem 102).
Regarding claim 2, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Halmann further teaches “wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit comprises a transmitter, a receiver and an analog-to-digital converter” (See [0035], [0038] and [0039] as discussed in claim 1 and . As shown in FIG. 2, the housing 200 of the ultrasound probe 104 includes the transmitter module 212, the receiver module 214, and the ADC module 210. Therefore, the first ultrasound front-end circuit comprises a transmitter, a receiver and an analog-to-digital converter (i.e. ADC).).
Regarding claim 3, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Chiang further teaches “wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit facilitates partial or full beamforming” (“The processing module 208 receives digital ultrasound data signals and may process the signals prior to communicating the data to the antenna 204 for wireless transmission to the processing subsystem 102 (shown in FIG. 1). For example, the processing module 208 may compress or filter the data prior to wirelessly communicating the data in order to reduce the total amount of data that is wirelessly transmitted. The processing module 208 may perform transmit and/or receive beamforming operations for the probe 104. […] The processing module 208 may perform receive beamform processing on the ultrasound data that is acquired by the transducer elements 106 before wirelessly transmitting the data to the processing subsystem 102” [0037]. As shown in FIG. 2, the processing module 208 is included within housing 200 of the ultrasound probe 104. Therefore, the first ultrasound front-end circuit facilitates partial or full beamforming of the ultrasound signal prior to performing wireless communication (i.e. via the antenna 204).).
Regarding claim 4, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Halmann further teaches “wherein the at least one communication interface comprises first and second communication interfaces communicatively coupled to the first ultrasound probe and the main console respectively” (See [0036] as discussed in claim 1 above and “The processing subsystem 102 wirelessly communicates with the probes 104 using one or more wireless access point devices 110. The access point devices 110 are generally referred to by the reference number 110 and individually referred to by the reference numbers 110a-c, as shown in FIG. 1. […] The access point devices 110 provide wireless interfaces between the processing subsystem 102 and the probes 104. The access point devices 110 include antennas 144 that transmit data to the probes 104 and receive data from the probes 104” [0024]. As shown in FIG. 2, the antenna 204 is present within the probe 104 to facilitate communication between the probe 104 and the processing subsystem 102. The access point devices 110 include their own antennae 144 to facilitate communication between the processing subsystem 102 and the probe(s) 104. Therefore, the at least one communication interface comprises first (i.e. antenna 204) and second communication interfaces (i.e. antenna 144 of the access point device) communicatively coupled to the first ultrasound probe (i.e. 104) and the main console (i.e. processing subsystem 102 containing the processor 130), respectively.).
Regarding claim 5, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Halmann further teaches “wherein the first ultrasound probe includes a second ultrasound front-end circuit” (See [0038] and [0039] as discussed with respect to claim 1 above and FIGS. 1 and 2. In this case, each of the probes 104a-104f include a housing 200 containing the transmit module 212, a receive module 212, and ADC module 210 (i.e. front-end circuit). Thus, the system shown in FIG. 1 includes multiple front-end circuits. Therefore, the first ultrasound probe includes a second ultrasound front-end circuit.).
Regarding claim 6, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Halmann further teaches “wherein the main console includes a third ultrasound front-end circuit that supports a second ultrasound probe that is a different type from the first ultrasound probe” (See FIG. 1, and “In an alternative embodiment, the processing subsystem 102 may include one or more receive beamformers that performs beamforming operations on the ultrasound data” [0027]; “The probes 104a, 104b may transmit ultrasound pulses at different frame rates and the acoustic bandwidth module 140 may vary or change the time periods during which the different probes 104a, 104b acquire ultrasound data based on the respective frame rates of the probes 104a, 104b” [0047]; “As another example, the duration of the acquisition time periods 408, 410 may vary based on the type of ultrasound images that are formed based on the ultrasound data obtained by each of the probes 104a, 104b. For example, some types of ultrasound images (e.g. 3D images) may require more ultrasound data to form the images than other types of ultrasound images (e.g. 2D images). In order to meet the greater data requirements or needs of some types of images, the acoustic bandwidth module 140 may allocate longer acquisition time periods 410 to the probe 104b that is acquiring ultrasound data for the images requiring greater amounts of data and/or allocate shorter acquisition time periods 408 to the probe 104a that is acquiring ultrasound data for the images requiring smaller amounts of data” [0053]. In this case, since probe 104b has a longer acquisition time period than the time period allotted to the probe 104a, thereby enabling the probe 104b to acquire ultrasound image data for the images requiring greater amounts of data (i.e. 3D images), the probe 104b is of a different type than the probe 104a. As shown in FIG. 1, the processing subsystem 102 includes transmitter 112, receiver 122 and RF processor 126. Furthermore, FIG. 1 shows that multiple probes 104 (i.e. 104A-104F) in communication with the processing subsystem 102 (i.e. main console). Therefore, the main console includes a third ultrasound front-end circuit (i.e. transmitter 112, receiver 122, and RF processor 12) that supports a second ultrasound probe (i.e. 104b, for example) that is a different type from the first ultrasound probe (i.e. 104a).).
Regarding claim 16, Chiang in view of Salgaonkar discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 12 above, and Chiang further teaches “wherein the at least one communication interface comprises a wireless receiver that enables an ultrasound probe to communicate wirelessly with the at least one modular front-end” (See [0036] as discussed with respect to claim 1 above and [0024] as discussed in claim 4 above. As shown in FIGS. 1 and 2, the access point devices 110 communicate with the probes 104 via antenna 144 (i.e. included in the access point device) and antenna 204 (i.e. included in the probe). These antennas 144 and 204 act as wireless transmitters and receivers (i.e. as indicated by the arrows pointing to and away from the antennas 144, 204 in FIGS. 1 and 2). Therefore, the at least one communication interface comprises a wireless receiver that enables an ultrasound probe to communicate wirelessly with the at least one modular front-end (i.e. transmitter module 212, receiver module 214, ADC module 210 included within the housing 200 of the probe 104).).
Regarding claim 20, Halmann teaches “A method of ultrasound imaging, comprising:” (“FIGS. 6A and 6B are a flowchart of one embodiment of a method for wireless communication in an ultrasound imaging system” [0013]. Therefore, Halmann discloses a method of ultrasound imaging.);
“communicatively coupling at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and a probe, wherein the at least one MFE includes an ultrasound front end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data in response to ultrasound signals from the probe, wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing and the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing” (See [0038], [0039] as discussed in claim 1 above, and “At 608, the probe is logically connected with an access point device. For example, one or more of the probes 104a-f (shown in FIG. 1) may be assigned to one of the access point devices 110a-c (shown in FIG. 1). The probe 104 may be assigned to an access point device 110 based on a proximity of the probe 104 to the access point device 110, a number of other probes 104 assigned to the access point device 110, an amount of available wireless data bandwidth of the access point device 110, and the like” [0074]. As shown in FIG. 1, the processing subsystem 102 (i.e. main console) is separate from the ultrasound probes (i.e. first housings) because they communicate via the access point devices 110 (i.e. containing antenna 144) and antenna 204 (i.e. in the probe 104, see FIG. 2). Therefore, the method involves communicatively coupling at least one modular front-end (MFE) (i.e. transmitter module 212, receiver module 214, ADC module 210 within housing 200 of the ultrasound probe 104) with a main console and a probe, wherein the at least one MFE includes an ultrasound front end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data (i.e. see [0038], [0039]) in response to ultrasound signals from the probe, wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing (i.e. housing 200 of the probe 104) and the main console (i.e. processing subsystem 102) is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing (i.e. as evidenced by the fact that wireless communication occurs between the processing subsystem 102 (i.e. containing the access point devices 110) and the probe(s) 104).);
“receiving, by the main console, the digital ultrasound data from the at least one MFE” (See [0038] and [0039] as discussed in claim 1 above and “At 624, acquired ultrasound data is wirelessly transmitted by the probe to the access point device. For example, the probe may wirelessly transmit ultrasound data that is addressed to one or more of the access point devices. The access point devices receive the ultrasound data and communicate the data to a processing subsystem that processes the data to form one or more ultrasound images” [0083]. Therefore, the method involves receiving, by the main console (i.e. the processing subsystem 102), the digital ultrasound data from the at least one MFE.); and
“constructing, by the main console, ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data” (See [0083] and “The processor 130 may perform additional or other processing on the acquired ultrasound data. Acquired ultrasound data may be processed and displayed in real-time during a scanning session as the ultrasound data is wirelessly received from the probes 104” [0029]. Therefore, since the acquired ultrasound data is processed and displayed in real-time (i.e. by the processor 130) the method involves constructing, by the main console (i.e. containing the processor 130), ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data.).
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. US 2021/0015456 A1 “Chiang”.
Regarding claim 7, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. While Halmann does discloses “The ultrasonic data may be sent to an external device 338 via a wired or wireless network 340 (or direct connection, for example, via a serial or parallel cable or USB port). In some embodiments, the external device 338 may be a computer or a workstation having a display, or the DVR of the various embodiments. Alternatively, the external device 338 may be a separate external display or a printer capable of receiving image data from the hand carried ultrasound system 330 and of displaying or printing images that may have greater resolution than the integrated display 336” [0087], Halmann does not teach “further comprises one or more additional computing resources that are made available to the main console for enhanced computational capacity”.
Chiang is within a related field of endeavor to the claimed invention because it involves systems and methods for portable ultrasound (See [Abstract]).
Chiang further teaches “further comprises one or more additional computing resources that are made available to the main console for enhanced computational capacity” (“The computer motherboard 106 also includes a microprocessor 1124 for executing computer-executable instructions stored on the core computer-readable memory 1122 for performing ultrasound imaging processing operations. Exemplary operations include, but are not limited to, down conversion, scan conversion, Doppler processing, Color Flow processing, Power Doppler processing, Spectral Doppler processing, and post signal processing” [0226]; and “The apparatus can be specially constructed for the required purpose, or can incorporate general-purpose computer devices selectively activated or configured by a computer program stored in the computer. In particular, various general-purpose machines employing one or more processors coupled to one or more computer readable media can be used with computer programs written in accordance with the teachings disclosed herein, or it may be more convenient to construct a more specialized apparatus to perform the required operations” [0617]. In this case, since the microprocessor executes computer-executable instructions stored on the core computer-readable memory 1122 and the apparatus may incorporate general-purpose computer devices selectively activated to perform required operations, the ultrasound modular front end further comprises one or more additional computing resources that are made available to the main console for enhanced computational capacity.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound modular front end of Halmann such that it further comprises one or more additional computing resources that are made available to the main console for enhanced computational capacity as disclosed in Chiang in order to allow different processing functions to be accessed when processing and generating ultrasound images. Providing a main console with external/specialized apparatuses (i.e. processors) which perform distinct processing functions is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to generate enhanced ultrasound images with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the ultrasound modular front end of Halmann such that it further comprises one or more additional computing resources that are made available to the main console for enhanced computational capacity as disclosed in Chiang would yield the predictable result of allowing different processing functions to be accessed when processing and generating ultrasound images.
Claim(s) 8 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Gille et al. WO 2007/047457 A2 “Gille”.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12 above. However, Halmann does not teach “wherein the first housing is detachably mounted to a procedure table” (Claim 8); or “wherein the at least one modular front-end and the main console are detachably mounted to a procedure table” (Claim 17).
Gille is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves a componentized intravascular ultrasound system in which a controller is mounted upon a rail on the patient table (see [Abstract] and [Page 3, Lines 12-13]).
Gille teaches “wherein the first housing is detachably mounted to a procedure table” (Claim 8); and “wherein the at least one modular front-end and the main console are detachably mounted to a procedure table” (Claim 17) (“a controller is mounted upon a rail on the patient table” [Page 3, Lines 12-13]; “The processing unit 100’s housing, by way of example, incorporates mechanical mounting features (e.g., hooks, clamps, etc.) allowing the processing unit 100 to be secured to mounting rails on the patient table 102. Alternatively, the processing unit 100 is mountable on wall attached rails” [Page 7, Lines 22-25]; “In an exemplary embodiment the monitor 112 is mounted to an articulated arm attached near the "foot" end of the patient table 102. The mounting arm incorporates many degrees of motion freedom thereby enabling rotating and positioning the monitor 112 so that it is entirely under the patient table and out of the way if desired” [Page 8, Lines 19-22]. In this case, the processing unit 100 “incorporates many of the capabilities and functionalities of known personal computers, coordinates operation of the peripheral components of the exemplary IVUS system, processes commands from attached controllers, issues control commands to an IVUS device (via a PIM) and processes IVUS data received from the IVUS device to render corresponding graphical IVUS image data” [Page 6, Lines 17-21]. Therefore, processing unit 100 represents a first housing. Thus, the first housing is detachable mounted to a procedure table and the at least one modular front-end (i.e. processing unit 100) and the main console (i.e. monitor 112) are detachable mounted to a procedure table (i.e. patient table 102).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound modular front end and the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the first housing is detachably mounted to a procedure table and the at least one modular front-end and the main console are detachably mounted to a procedure table as disclosed in Gille in order to allow a user to access and control the position the first housing/modular front-end and main console easily when performing an intravascular imaging procedure.
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Salgaonkar US 2020/0315572 A1 “Salgaonkar”.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. However, Halmann does not teach “wherein the first ultrasound probe comprises an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter” (Claim 9) or “wherein the first ultrasound probe comprises a matrix transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or matrix ICE (MICE) probe” (Claim 10).
Salgaonkar is within a related field of endeavor to the claimed invention because it involves utilizing an ultrasound probe to obtain images from within the body (See [0026]).
Salgaonkar teaches “wherein the first ultrasound probe comprises an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter” (Claim 9) and “wherein the first ultrasound probe comprises a matrix transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) or matrix ICE (MICE) probe” (Claim 10) (“In some implementations, the probe 111 includes an imaging source 112. The imaging source 112 is an array, sensor, lens, transducer, or other element for imaging or scanning the patient from the probe 111. For example, the imaging source 112 in the catheter is an ultrasound transducer element or array of an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter, an ultrasound transducer element of an intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) catheter, a lens or camera of an optical coherence tomography (OCT) catheter, a lens or camera of an optical imaging catheter, or is an ultrasound transducer array of a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) ultrasound transducer” [0026]. Therefore, the imaging source 112 is one of the following: 1) a catheter, specifically an ultrasound transducer element or array of an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter; or 2) an ultrasound transducer array (i.e. matrix) of a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE) ultrasound transducer.
Thus, the first ultrasound probe comprises an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter. Furthermore, the first ultrasound probe alternatively comprises a transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the first ultrasound probe (i.e. 104) of Halmann such that it comprises an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter or a matrix transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe as disclosed in Salgaonkar in order to allow a user to perform echocardiography with a modular/portable ultrasound system (See Halmann: FIG. 7, for example). Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheters and transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probes are two of a finite number of probe types which can be utilized within a portable system (see Salgaonkar: [0020], Halmann: FIG. 7), to obtain echocardiography images with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the first ultrasound probe of Halmann such that it comprises an intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter or a matrix (i.e. array) transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) probe as disclosed in Salgaonkar would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to perform echocardiography with a modular/portable ultrasound system (see Halmann: FIG. 7).
Claim(s) 11 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Meurer et al. US 2019/0380681 A1 “Meurer”.
Regarding claims 11 and 18, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12 above. However, Halmann does not teach “wherein the first housing is detachably mounted to a wheel assembly” (Claim 11) or “wherein the at least one modular front-end is detachably mounted to a wheel assembly” (Claim 18).
Meurer is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves a portable ultrasound imaging system (See FIG. 2).
Meurer teaches “wherein the first housing is detachably mounted to a wheel assembly” (Claim 11) and “wherein the at least one modular front-end is detachably mounted to a wheel assembly” (Claim 18) (“During conditions in which the portable ultrasound system 202 is coupled to the cradle 206 (e.g., as shown by FIGS. 2-4), the bottom end 940 of the portable ultrasound system 202 is seated against the support surface 616 of the cradle 206 (shown by FIGS. 6-7) and is partially enclosed by the cradle 206 (e.g., surrounded by surfaces of the cradle 206). […] The first lock orifice 1200 and the second lock orifice 1202 are shaped to engage with the hooks of the cradle 206 (e.g., first hook 604 and second hook 606, respectively, shown by FIGS. 6-7, which may be referred to herein as counterpart mating features of the cradle 206) in order to removably couple the housing 902 of the portable ultrasound system 202 to the cradle 206” [0079]. Therefore, when the portable ultrasound system 202 is coupled to the cradle 206, the portable ultrasound system 202 is detachably mounted to a wheel assembly (i.e. wheels 210). Therefore, the first housing and the at least one modular front-end are detachably mounted to a wheel assembly.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound modular front-end and the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the first housing and the at least one modular front-end are detachably mounted to a wheel assembly as disclosed in Meurer in order to allow a user to have more control in where the first housing and the at least one modular front-end are positioned. Enabling a first housing and at least one modular front-end to be detachable from a wheel assembly (i.e. wheels 210) allows the user to change the location thereof for better access thereto. Thus, modifying the ultrasound modular front-end and the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the first housing and the at least one modular front-end are detachably mounted to a wheel assembly as disclosed in Meurer would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to control the position of the first housing and the at least on modular front-end to a desired location for access thereto.
Regarding claim 19, Halmann in view of Meurer discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 18 above, and Meurer further teaches “wherein the main console is a portable display device that is positioned on a surface of the wheel assembly” (See Meurer: [0079] as discussed in claim 18 above. As shown in FIG. 2, for example, the portable ultrasound system 202 containing the touch sensitive display 289 (i.e. main console) is attached to the casters 210 (i.e. wheel assembly) via the support stand 204. Therefore, the main console is a portable display device that is positioned on a surface of the wheel assembly.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the main console is a portable display device that is positioned on a surface of the wheel assembly as disclosed in Meurer in order to allow a user to have more control in where the first housing and the at least one modular front-end are positioned. Attaching a main console (i.e. touch sensitive display 289) to a wheel assembly (i.e. casters 210) allows the user to change the location thereof for better access thereto. Thus, modifying the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the main console is a portable display device that is positioned on a surface of the wheel assembly as disclosed in Meurer would yield the predictable result of allowing a user to control the position of the main console to a desired location for access thereto.
Claim(s) 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yang et al. US 2020/0405266 A1 “Yang”.
Regarding claim 13, Halmann discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 12 above. However, Halmann does not teach “wherein the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends, respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing an ultrasound probe and the second housing of the main console”.
Yang is within a related field of endeavor to the claimed invention because it involves a pipeline configured to pipeline ultrasound signals from multiple analog front-ends (AFEs) to a digital portion of an ultrasound processing unit (see [Abstract]).
Yang teaches “wherein the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends, respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing an ultrasound probe and the second housing of the main console” (“FIG. 3 illustrates in detail exemplary circuitry that may be included in the AFEs 205-208. More specifically, the exemplary circuitry in the AFE 205 includes a pulser 318, a waveform generator 320, a switch 324, analog processing circuitry 326, an analog-to-digital converter (ADC) 328, and pipelining circuitry 340. The analog processing circuitry 326, the ADC 328, and the pipelining circuitry 340 constitute receive circuitry 322. The circuitry in the AFEs 206-208 includes the same circuitry as in the AFE 205, but for simplicity, only the ADC 328 and the pipelining circuitry 340 are illustrated for each. The circuitry illustrated in FIG. 3 further includes an ultrasonic transducer 314, de-interleaving circuitry 342, and digital processing circuitry 330” [0044]. In this case, FIG. 3 includes an analog portion 112 and a digital portion 110 which is included in a UPU 200 (i.e. ultrasound processing unit). Therefore, the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends (i.e. AFEs 205-208), respectively disposed within multiple separate housings separate from an external to a probe housing enclosing an ultrasound probe (i.e. ultrasonic transducer 314) and the second housing of the main console (i.e. UPU 200).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends respectively disposed within multiple separate first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing an ultrasound probe and the second housing of the main console as disclosed in Yang in order enable processing of ultrasonic signals from a plurality of ultrasonic transducers/probes (see Yang: [0039]: “As described above, ultrasonic transducers (not shown in FIG. 2) may be physically located on top of (i.e., with respect to the depth dimension of the ultrasound-on-chip 100, out of the plane of FIG. 2) each of the AFEs 201-208. For example, multiple ultrasonic transducers (e.g., eight) may be located each of the AFEs 201-208, and each of the transducers may be coupled to the circuitry of the respective AFE in a multiplexed fashion”). Utilizing multiple AFEs is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to perform processing from multiple ultrasonic transducers with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the at least one modular front-end comprises multiple modular front-ends respectively disposed within multiple separate first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing an ultrasound probe and the second housing of the main console as disclosed in Yang would yield the predictable result of enabling processing of ultrasonic signals from a plurality of ultrasonic transducers/probes.
Regarding claim 14, Halmann in view of Yang discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 13 above, and Yang further teaches “wherein the main console processes in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously” (“Thus, embodiments may be constructed in which acts are performed in an order different than illustrated, which may include performing some acts simultaneously, even though shown as sequential acts in illustrative embodiments” [0093]. Therefore, since acts, performed by the digital portion 110 (i.e. main console), are performed simultaneously, the main console processes in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends (i.e. AFEs 205-208) simultaneously.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the main console processed in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously as disclosed in Yang in order enable processing of ultrasonic signals from a plurality of ultrasonic transducers/probes. Utilizing multiple AFEs and processing digital ultrasound data simultaneously are two of a finite number of techniques which can be used to perform processing from multiple ultrasonic transducers with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that the main console processed in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously as disclosed in Yang in order enable processing of ultrasonic signals from a plurality of ultrasonic transducers/probes.
Regarding claim 15, Halmann in view of Yang discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 13 above, and Halmann further teaches “different types of probes” (See Halmann FIG. 1 and [0053] as discussed in claim 6 above. Therefore, the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann includes different types of probes (i.e. probe 104b for 3D imaging, probe 104a for 2D imaging, see [0053]).
Yang further teaches “wherein the multiple modular front-ends support […] probes” (See Yang: [0039] and [0044]. As shown in FIG. 3 of Yang, multiple AFEs 205-208 are present and obtain ultrasound data from ultrasound transducer(s) 314. Therefore, the multiple modular front-ends support probes (i.e. transducers 314).).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that it includes multiple modular-front ends as disclosed in Yang which support different types of probes (i.e. probes 104a-104f, see FIG. 1 of Halmann) in order to enable processing of ultrasonic signals from a plurality of ultrasonic transducers/probes. Utilizing multiple AFEs which support different types of probes is one of a finite number of techniques which can be used to perform processing from multiple ultrasonic transducers with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that it includes multiple modular-front ends as disclosed in Yang which support different types of probes (i.e. probes 104a-104f, see FIG. 1 of Halmann) would yield the predictable result of enable processing of ultrasonic signals from a plurality of ultrasonic transducers/probes.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.- Fri. 7:30-4:30 (Alternate Fridays Off).
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights