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 .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 06/02/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1, 4, 12, 13, 16 and 20 are amended. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments and 35 U.S.C. 103 sections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 7-10, filed 06/02/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 1-6, 12, 16 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 and have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Independent Claims 1, 12 and 20
With respect to claim 1, the Applicant argues that Halmann fails to disclose at least a communication module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface, wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data; and a first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the first ultrasound probe and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing.
The Examiner maps Halmann's probe 104 as the claimed "modular front-end" in the "first housing" and Halmann's processing subsystem 102 as the claimed "main console" in the "second housing." See Office Action at pages 14-15. This mapping fails for at least the following reasons.
The Applicant argues that Halmann fails to disclose at least a communication module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface. In contrast, Halmann's probe 104 has only one communication pathway: antenna 204, which communicates exclusively with access point devices 110 toward the processing subsystem 102. See Halmann at paragraph [0036]. Halmann's probe has no "first communication interface coupled to a first ultrasound probe" because no external probe connects into probe 104 as a signal source. The transducer elements 106 inside probe 104 are part of the probe-they are not an external probe connecting to an MFE. The claimed dual-interface architecture is wholly absent from Halmann's probe 104.
The examiner acknowledges that Halmann’s probe 104 has only one communication pathway: antenna 204, which communicates exclusively with access point devices 110 toward the processing subsystem 102. See Halmann at paragraph [0036]. The examiner agrees that Halmann's probe has no "first communication interface coupled to a first ultrasound probe" because no external probe connects into probe 104 as a signal source. The transducer elements 106 inside probe 104 are part of the probe-they are not an external probe connecting to an MFE. The examiner recognizes that the claimed dual-interface architecture is wholly absent from Halmann's probe 104. Therefore, the examiner acknowledges that Halmann does not teach “a communication module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface”.
Furthermore, the Applicant argues that Halmann also fails to disclose at least a first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the first ultrasound probe and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console. Halmann's probe 104 - whose housing 200 is, by definition, a probe housing (it holds transducer elements 106 at transmission face 202, see Halmann [0035]) cannot simultaneously serve as both the "first housing" of the MFE and the "probe housing" from which the first housing must be separate. The Examiner's mapping requires a single device to satisfy two mutually exclusive roles. Put plainly: if probe 104's housing is the "first housing," then what is "the first ultrasound probe" that the MFE's communication module is "communicatively coupled to"? Halmann provides no answer-there is no third device connecting into probe 104 as an upstream probe signal source. Halmann has two devices; the claims require three.
The claimed MFE is an intermediate device that: (1) receives ultrasound signals from a separate, physically distinct ultrasound probe via a first communication interface; (2) digitizes those signals via a front-end circuit; and (3) transmits digital ultrasound data to a main console via a separate, second communication interface. Halmann has no such intermediate device. Halmann's wireless probes are terminal transducer units that communicate directly with a centralized processing subsystem-there is no MFE that sits between them.
The examiner acknowledges that Halmann’s probe 104 - whose housing 200 is, by definition, a probe housing (it holds transducer elements 106 at transmission face 202, see Halmann [0035]) cannot simultaneously serve as both the "first housing" of the MFE and the "probe housing" from which the first housing must be separate. The Examiner's previous mapping requires a single device to satisfy two mutually exclusive roles. Put plainly: if probe 104's housing is the "first housing," then what is "the first ultrasound probe" that the MFE's communication module is "communicatively coupled to"? The examiner agrees that Halmann provides no answer-there is no third device connecting into probe 104 as an upstream probe signal source. The examiner concedes that Halmann has two devices, while the claims require three.
The examiner recognizes that the claimed MFE is an intermediate device that: (1) receives ultrasound signals from a separate, physically distinct ultrasound probe via a first communication interface; (2) digitizes those signals via a front-end circuit; and (3) transmits digital ultrasound data to a main console via a separate, second communication interface. The examiner agrees that Halmann has no such intermediate device. Furthermore, Halmann's wireless probes are terminal transducer units that communicate directly with a centralized processing subsystem-there is no MFE that sits between them.
Similarly, with respect to claim 12, Halmann fails to disclose “at least one modular front- end disposed within a first housing, including a communication module and a first ultrasound front-end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data, wherein the communication module comprises a first communication interface communicatively coupled to an ultrasound probe and a second communication interface that is separate from the first communication interface, wherein the first housing is separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe; and 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 second 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”.
The examiner respectfully agrees that Halmann fails to disclose “at least one modular front- end disposed within a first housing, including a communication module and a first ultrasound front-end circuit that generates digital ultrasound data, wherein the communication module comprises a first communication interface communicatively coupled to an ultrasound probe and a second communication interface that is separate from the first communication interface, wherein the first housing is separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe; and 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 second 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” as disclosed in claim 12.
As for claim 20, Halmann similarly fails to disclose “communicatively coupling, via a first communication interface, at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and communicatively coupling, via a second communication interface, the at least one MFE with 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 separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the probe, wherein the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing”.
Consequently, Halmann fails to disclose "each and every element" as set forth in these claims. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully ask the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of these claims.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges that Halmann fails to teach “communicatively coupling, via a first communication interface, at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and communicatively coupling, via a second communication interface, the at least one MFE with 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 separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the probe, wherein the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing”.
Consequently, Halmann fails to disclose "each and every element" as set forth in these claims. Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 12 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. 102 in the non-final rejection of 04/23/2026 have been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Dependent Claims 2-6 and 16
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 notes that due to their dependence on claims 1 and 12, these claims are subject to the reasoning provided therein. Therefore, these claims are subject to the new grounds of rejection made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 11-15, filed 06/02/2026 with respect to the rejection of claims 7-11, 13-15, 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 and have been fully considered and are persuasive.
Based upon Halmann and Chiang
The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann in view of Chiang et al., US 2021/0015456 Al ("Chiang"). Applicants respectfully traverses the rejection of these claims.
This claim ultimately depends upon independent claim 1. As discussed above, claim 1 is 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.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and requires the MFE to additionally comprise "one or more additional computing resources that are made available to the main console for enhanced computational capacity." The Examiner relies on Chiang to supply this feature. Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Claim 7 requires computing resources that reside in the MFE and are made available outward to the main console. Chiang's microprocessor 1124 resides in the console housing 102 and is the console's own internal resource - no external MFE is involved. Citing Chiang [0226] for this limitation is a category error: internal console computing is not the same as external MFE-to-console resource sharing. Chiang's architecture precludes the separation required: Chiang [0143] discloses everything on a single board in the same housing. The Examiner's own withdrawal acknowledgment in this Office Action (at e.g., page 3) establishes that Chiang lacks the separated MFE/console architecture that is the foundational premise of claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. A reference the Examiner has already acknowledged lacks MFE/console housing separation cannot supply a feature that requires resources to flow from the MFE housing to the main console.
Consequently, Halmann and Chiang fails to teach or suggest the features of this claim. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully ask the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of this claim.
The examiner acknowledges that claim 7 requires computing resources that reside in the MFE and are made available outward to the main console. Furthermore, the examiner recognizes that Chiang's microprocessor 1124 resides in the console housing 102 and is the console's own internal resource, therefore, no external MFE is involved. The examiner agrees that citing Chiang [0226] for this limitation is a category error: internal console computing is not the same as external MFE-to-console resource sharing. Chiang's architecture precludes the separation required: Chiang [0143] discloses everything on a single board in the same housing. The Examiner's own withdrawal acknowledgment in this Office Action (at e.g., page 3) establishes that Chiang lacks the separated MFE/console architecture that is the foundational premise of claim 1 from which claim 7 depends. The examiner agrees that a reference that has already acknowledged lacks MFE/console housing separation cannot supply a feature that requires resources to flow from the MFE housing to the main console.
Therefore, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann in view of Chiang has been withdrawn. However, due to its dependence on claim 1, this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein. Therefore, claim 7 is subject to the new grounds of rejection made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Based upon Halmann and Gille
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann in view of Gille et al., WO 2007047457A2 ("Gille"). Applicants respectfully traverses the rejection of these claims.
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 acknowledges that Gille does not cure the deficiencies of Halmann with respect to the features of claims 1 and 12. Therefore, the rejections of claims 8 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection of 04/23/2026 have been withdrawn. However, due to their dependence on claims 1 and 12, these claims are subject to the reasoning provided therein. Therefore, claims 8 and 17 are subject to the new grounds of rejection made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Based upon Halmann and Salgaonkar
The Examiner rejects claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann in view of Salgaonkar et al., US 2020/0315572 Al ("Salgaonkar"). Applicants respectfully traverses the rejection of these claims.
These claims ultimately depend upon independent claim 1. As discussed above, claim 1 is 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 acknowledges that Salgaonkar does not cure the deficiencies of Halmann with respect to the features of claim 1. Therefore, the rejections of claims 9-10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection of 04/23/2026 have been withdrawn. However, due to their dependence on claim 1, these claims are subject to the reasoning provided therein. Therefore, claims 9-10 are subject to the new grounds of rejection made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Based upon Halmann and Meurer
The Examiner rejects claims 11 and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann in view of Meurer et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0380681 Al ("Meurer"). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection of these claims.
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 acknowledges that Meurer does not cure the deficiencies of Halmann with respect to the features of claim 1. Therefore, the rejections of claims 11, and 18-19 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection of 04/23/2026 have been withdrawn. However, due to their dependence on claim 1, these claims are subject to the reasoning provided therein. Therefore, claims 11, and 18-19 are subject to the new grounds of rejection made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Based upon Halmann and Yang
The Examiner rejects claims 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann in view of Yang et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0405266 Al ("Yang"). Applicants respectfully traverse the rejection of these claims. These claims ultimately depend upon independent claim 12. As discussed above, claim 12 is 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.
With respect to claim 13, the asserted combination of Halmann and Yang 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 the probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe and the second housing of the main console”.
Claim 13 requires multiple modular front-ends "respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings." Yang discloses an ultrasound-on-chip architecture (Yang at paragraph [0044]) in which analog front-ends (AFEs 205-208) are integrated circuit components on a single chip substrate, sharing the same die, the same package, and the same physical enclosure the "ultrasound-on-chip 100" (Yang at FIG. 2). Yang at [0039] describes transducers as physically located "on top of' the AFEs, confirming chip-level integration.
On-chip AFEs are not "separate housings" by any reasonable construction. "Housing" in the context of this application-as confirmed by the present specification at paragraph [0022] ("plastic, metal, wood, fiberglass, or any other now-known or later-developed material for housing electronics")-refers to an external physical enclosure of a standalone device. A chip- level AFE shares silicon real estate with other AFEs and is enclosed within the chip package as a whole-not "respectively disposed within multiple separate" individual housings. The Examiner's reliance on Yang's on-chip AFEs to teach separately housed MFEs conflates integrated circuit design with standalone device enclosures.
The examiner acknowledges that claim 13 requires multiple modular front-ends “respectively disposed within multiple separate first housings”. Yang discloses an ultrasound-on-chip in which analog front-ends (AFEs 205-208) are integrated circuit components on a single chip substrate, sharing the same die, the same package and the same physical enclosure (i.e. ultrasound-on-chip 100).
The examiner acknowledges that Yang does not cure the deficiencies of Halmann with respect to the features of claim 12. Therefore, the rejection of claims 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection of 04/23/2026 has been withdrawn. However, due to its dependence on claim 12, this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein.
With respect to claim 14, Applicants respectfully submit that the asserted combination of Halmann and Yang fails to teach or suggest at least wherein the main console processes in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously.
The Examiner relies on Yang [0093]'s generic boilerplate language that "acts may be performed... simultaneously." This generic permissibility statement does not teach that a main console processes data streams from multiple physically separate MFEs in parallel simultaneously. Yang's "simultaneous" acts occur within a single on-chip pipeline-not between a main console and multiple independent external front-end modules. Notably, the Examiner previously acknowledged and withdrew the corresponding rejection of claim 14 under Chiang, recognizing that Chiang's simultaneous imaging modes and views did not teach parallel front-end processing. See Office Action at page 10. Yang's weaker boilerplate language cannot supply what Chiang's explicit imaging disclosures could not.
Consequently, Halmann and Yang fails to teach or suggest the features of this claim. Accordingly, Applicants respectfully ask the Examiner to withdraw the rejection of these claims.
The examiner acknowledges that Yang fails to teach or suggest at least wherein the main console processes in parallel the digital ultrasound data from the multiple modular front-ends simultaneously. The examiner recognizes that paragraph [0093] of Yang utilizes generic boilerplate language that “acts may be performed […] simultaneously”. This generic permissibility statement does not teach that a main console processes data streams from multiple physically separate MFEs in parallel simultaneously. The examiner agrees that Yang’s “simultaneous” acts occur within a single on-chip pipeline-not between a main console and multiple independent external front-end modules.
The examiner acknowledges that Yang does not cure the deficiencies of Halmann with respect to the features of claim 12. Therefore, the rejection of claims 14 under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection of 04/23/2026 have been withdrawn. However, due to their dependence on claim 12, this claim is subject to the reasoning provided therein.
Therefore, claims 13-15 are subject to the new grounds of rejection made in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 103 section below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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) 1-6, 12, 16, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” and further in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland”.
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).);
“wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data” (Claim 1); “a main console enclosed by a second housing separate from and external to the first housing […], 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).
Halmann does not teach “a communication interface module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface” (Claim 1); “including a communication module […] wherein the communication module comprises a first communication interface communicatively coupled to an ultrasound probe and a second communication interface that is separate from the first communication interface” (Claim 12); “a first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing” (Claim 1); “wherein the first housing is separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe” (Claim 12) and that the main console is “communicatively coupled to the at least one modular front end via the second communication interface” (Claim 12).
Poland is within a related field of endeavor to the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasound imaging system 10 with three distinct components (see FIG. 5).
Poland teaches “a communication interface module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface” (Claim 1); “including a communication module […] wherein the communication module comprises a first communication interface communicatively coupled to an ultrasound probe and a second communication interface that is separate from the first communication interface” (Claim 12); that the main console is “communicatively coupled to the at least one modular front end via the second communication interface” (Claim 12) (“However, in this embodiment, the image acquisition device 46 is not solely implemented in the probe 14. Instead, the probe carries the transducer array 32, the micro beam formers 62 and, optionally, a first input device 20. Further, there is provided an intermediate connection device 48 as part of the image acquisition device 46 that is connected via an intermediate interface 52 with the probe 14. In particular, the intermediate connection device 48 can be portable. The intermediate interface 52 may be a cable connection. However, in this case, preferably the interface 50 connecting the intermediate connection device with the console device 16, 18 is implemented wirelessly. For example, if the interface 50 is a wireless interface, the UWB technology may be used. In case the intermediate interface 52 is cable-connected, the interface 52 may also include a power line to power the probe 14 and the intermediate connection device 48 may include a battery for powering both the intermediate connection device 48 and the transducer array 32. In case the interface 50 is wireless, the intermediate connection device 48 may be powered by a battery. In that case the same battery may also provide power to both the intermediate connection device 48 and probe 14. However, the intermediate connection device 48 may also be provided with a wired power connection” [0079]; “The software implemented image processor 42 may also be part of an application 44 run on the central processing unit 40 of the console device to provide display data for display on the display device 26.” [0072].
As shown in FIG. 5, there is an intermediate interface 52 between the probe 14 (i.e. the ultrasound probe) and an interface 50 between the intermediate connection device 48 (i.e. first housing containing modular front-end) and the console device 16, 18 (i.e. main console). Therefore, Poland discloses a communication interface module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe (i.e. probe 14) via a first communication interface (i.e. intermediate interface 52) of the communication module and to a main console (i.e. console device 16,18) via a second communication interface (i.e. interface 50) of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface. Additionally, since an application 44 can be run on the central processing unit 40 (i.e. within console device 16, 18) to provide display data on the display device 26, the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data (i.e. received by the probe 14 and communicated through the intermediate connection device 48).
“a first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing” (Claim 1); “wherein the first housing is separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe” (Claim 12) (See intermediate connection device 48 as described in paragraph [0079] above. As shown in FIG. 5, the intermediate connection device 48 includes a recognition partner element 56 (see [0075]) and a central processing unit 47 (see [0071]) containing a main beam former 60 (see [0063]), a signal processor 36 (see [0057]), an image processor 42 (see [0057]). Thus, the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing (i.e. intermediate connection device 48). Therefore, the system of Poland includes a first housing (i.e. intermediate connection device 48) separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe (i.e. probe 14) and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console (i.e. console 16, 18). Likewise, the first housing is separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound 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 ultrasound modular front end and the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that they include a communication interface module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface, wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data and a first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing as disclosed in Poland in order to enable ultrasound data to be communicated to a portable intermediate device (i.e. first housing/intermediate connection device 48) for processing prior to display of an ultrasound image on a main console viewed by a physician. Performing image processing is necessary before an ultrasound image can be displayed and an intermediate device/housing is one of a finite number of devices which can be used to perform image processing with a reasonable expectation of success. Therefore, modifying the modular front end and the ultrasound imaging system of Halmann such that they include a communication interface module that is communicatively coupled to a first ultrasound probe via a first communication interface of the communication module and to a main console via a second communication interface of the communication module that is separate from the first communication interface, wherein the main console constructs ultrasound images based on the digital ultrasound data and a first housing separate from and external to a probe housing enclosing the ultrasound probe and separate from a second housing that encloses the main console, wherein the first ultrasound front-end circuit is disposed within the first housing as disclosed in Poland would yield the predictable result of enabling ultrasound data to be communicated to a portable intermediate device (i.e. first housing/intermediate connection device 48) for processing prior to display of an ultrasound image on a main console viewed by a physician.
Regarding claim 2, Halmann in view of Poland 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. 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 in view of Poland 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 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 in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above, and Poland further teaches “wherein first and second communication interfaces comprise wired interfaces connectable to cables” (See [0079] as discussed with respect to claim 1 above and “Also the interface 50 may be as previously explained, it may be cable connected” [0078]. Therefore, since the intermediate interface 52 (i.e. first communication interface) may be a cable connection and the interface 50 (i.e. second communication interface) may be cable connected, the first and second communication interfaces comprise wired interfaces connectable to cables.).
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 the first and second communication interfaces comprise wired interfaces connectable to cables as disclosed in Poland in order to allow ultrasound data to be transmitted between the ultrasound probe and the first housing and between the first housing and the main console. A wired interface connectable by cables is one of a finite number of devices which can be used to transmit ultrasound data with a reasonable expectation of success. Thus, modifying the ultrasound modular front-end of Halmann such that the first and second communication interfaces comprise wired interfaces connectable to cables as disclosed in Poland would yield the predictable result of allowing ultrasound data to be transmitted between the ultrasound probe and the first housing and between the first housing and the main console.
Regarding claim 5, Halmann in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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, Halmann in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 12 above, and Halmann further teaches “wherein the first communication interface comprises a wireless receiver that enables the ultrasound probe to communicate wirelessly with the at least one modular front-end” (“The probes are configured to generate ultrasound data based on the echoes and to wirelessly transmit the ultrasound data. The access point device is configured to wirelessly receive the ultrasound data from the probes” [Abstract]. Therefore, the ultrasound imaging system further comprises a first communication interface with a wireless receiver (i.e. within access point device) that enables the ultrasound probe to communicate wirelessly with the at least one modular front-end.).
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.);
“at least one modular front-end (MFE) […] a main console […] 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” (See [0038] and [0039] with respect to claim 1 above. In this case, the analog front end receives analog ultrasound signals from the probe and communicates them to the ADC module to generate digital ultrasound data signal. The processing module 208, in this case, is located within a main console.);
“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.).
Halmann does not teach “communicatively coupling, via a first communication interface, at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and communicatively coupling, via a second communication interface, the at least one MFE with a probe, […] wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the probe, wherein the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing”.
Poland teaches “communicatively coupling, via a first communication interface, at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and communicatively coupling, via a second communication interface, the at least one MFE with a probe, […] wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the probe, wherein the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing” (See [0079] as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12 above. As shown in FIG. 5, the interface 50 connects the at least one modular front-end (MFE) (i.e. within intermediate connection device 48) to the console device 16,18 (i.e. main console) and the intermediate interface 52 connects the MFE (i.e. within intermediate connection device 48) to the probe (i.e. probe 14). Additionally, the probe 14, the intermediate connection device 48 and the console device 16, 18 are all separate and external to each other. Therefore, in order to create the system shown in FIG. 5, a method involving communicatively coupling, via a first communication interface (i.e. interface 50), at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and communicatively coupling, via a second communication interface (i.e. intermediate interface 52), the at least one MFE with a probe, wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the probe, wherein the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing, must be performed.).
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 method of Halmann such that it involves communicatively coupling, via a first communication interface, at least one modular front-end (MFE) with a main console and communicatively coupling, via a second communication interface, the at least one MFE with a probe, […] wherein the ultrasound front end circuit is disposed within a first housing separate and external to a probe housing enclosing the probe, wherein the main console is enclosed by a second housing that is separate from and external to the first housing as disclosed in Poland in order to enable ultrasound data to be effectively communicated between the components of the system with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halmann US 2012/0179037 A1 “Halmann” in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Chiang et al. US 2021/0015456 A1 “Chiang”.
Regarding claim 7, Halmann in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. While Halmann does disclose “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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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” in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” 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 in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12 above. However, Halmann in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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” in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Salgaonkar US 2020/0315572 A1 “Salgaonkar”.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Halmann in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 1 above. However, Halmann in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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” in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” 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 in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claims 1 and 12 above. However, Halmann in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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 Poland and 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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” in view of Poland US 2016/0015368 A1 “Poland” as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yang et al. US 2020/0405266 A1 “Yang”.
Regarding claim 13, Halmann in view of Poland discloses all features of the claimed invention as discussed with respect to claim 12 above. However, Halmann in view of Poland 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 the probe housing enclosing the 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 the probe housing enclosing the 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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 Poland and 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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 Poland and 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 in view of Poland 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 in view of Poland 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
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 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