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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, specifically a mental process, without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “adjusting a segment of a TGC gain characteristic with a TGC control module…”. The limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind, but for the recitation of generic computer components, and/or read on analyzing an image by visual inspection by a user. In this case, “adjusting a segment of a TGC gain characteristic with a TGC control module…in response to input at which at least one touch sensor used to adjust a TGC gain characteristic” can be practically performed in the mind by a user/physician viewing an image, through visual inspection. If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a processor), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Following step 2A of the two-prong analysis, these judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the claim merely provides instructions to implement an abstract idea and makes no mention of whether a generic computer (i.e. “using a computer processor”) is used to do so (See MPEP 2106.05(f)). Furthermore, the claims as written do not include elements to 1) improve the functioning of a computer (See MPEP 2105.05(a)); 2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)); 3) use a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)); or 4) use the judicial exceptions in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Following step 2B of the two-prong analysis, the additional element(s) (i.e. applying an adjusted TGC gain to a TGC amplifier) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception the computer is simply the tool used to perform the abstract idea of adjusting a segment of a TGC gain characteristic with a control module (See MPEP 2106.05(f)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 15 is directed to “method for producing ultrasound images adjusted for depth-dependent ultrasound attenuation by TGC control” and adjusting the segment of the TGC gain characteristic and applying the adjusted TGC gain to the TGC amplifier. It is not clear from the claim language how the TGC gain characteristic is adjusted with the TGC control module. Claims 1-14 provide elements that further define how the touch sensors are connected to the increase/decrease in the amounts of TGC gain adjustment. It is suggested claim 15 provide further clarity with respect to the adjustment steps regarding the enlarged regions with the corresponding touch sensors and the different amounts of TGC gain adjustment.
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.
Claim(s) 1-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rust et al. (2003/0187354) in view of Nordgren et al. (2019/0380683).
With respect to claims 1 and 15, Rust et al. teach of an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system 700 and method for producing ultrasound images adjusted for depth-dependent ultrasound attenuation by time gain compensation (TGC) control [0032, 0033]. Rust et al. teach of TGC amplifiers 812 located in a receive echo signal path of the imaging system and a source of a TGC gain characteristic [0050]. Rust et al. teach of a TGC control module adapted to enable adjustment of the TGC gain characteristic where some of gains in the echo signal path may be automatically implemented by the ultrasonic system and the manual gain control and the TGC gain of TGC amplifiers may be controlled by the user and gain are adjusted optimally for the dynamic input range of the ADCs and the digital gain is adjusted to optimized the brightness of the image [0050].
Rust et al. do not explicitly teach of the specifics of the TGC control module with the plurality of sensors or touch sensors located on the opposite sides of the enlarged regions of the TGC control module. In a related field of endeavor Nordgren et al. teach of an ultrasound based system and method with control panel for use with the medical diagnostic equipment where the control panel 300 includes a plurality of user control areas 306 at fixed location along a control surface of the control panel 300 including a plurality of separate or discrete capacitive touch sensors forming the capacitive touch layer [0027, 0031]. Nordgren et al. teach of topographic features or surface features in the form of raised bars or surfaces 350a, bumps 350b, for a specific control including depressions, holes, raised bars, bumps to aid in locating a specific control [0033]. Nordgren et al. teach of TGC sliders 326 configured to sense the application of a touch or touch with pressure along a side of the control to mimic the sliding motion of a real slider and pushing on one side or the other of the knobs with fingers could be sensed by a force sensor and be distinguished as an increase or decrease of time gain compensation and tap on the top or a touch on both side could center the gain where the tactile and/or audible feedback may be used to provide user feedback along with that given on an imaging display or touch panel [0031, 0032]. The combination of the references therefore teach of a TGC gain processor responsive to the touch sensors (as taught by Nordgren) and to the TGC gain characteristic, adapted to apply the adjusted TGC gain to the amplifiers (as taught by Rust). It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Nordgren et al. to modify Rust et al. to detect touch and adjust the gain as needed and provide user feedback along with displayed image for better diagnostics [Nordgren, 0031, 0032].
With respect to claim 2, Rust et al. in view of Nordgren et al. teach of an image display adapted to display an ultrasound image and a curve of the TGC gain characteristic [Rust, 0043, 0047, 0052, 0053].
With respect to claims 3 and 4, Rust et al do not explicitly teach of the touch sensors. Nordgren et al. teach of the use of capacitive touch sensor or capacitive micromachined ultrasonic transducers [0027, 0055, 0056]. Nordgren et al. also teach of the use of a force-sensitive resistive device for detecting applied force to the control [0056]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Nordgren et al. to modify Rust et al. to detect touch and adjust the gain as needed and provide user feedback along with displayed image for better diagnostics [Nordgren, 0031, 0032].
With respect to claims 5 and 6, Rust et al. do not teach of the elongated structure with periodically spaced enlarged regions. Nordgren et al. teach of the elongated structure or the capacitive touch layer 510c with periodically space enlarged regions 522c-1, 552c-2 (fig. 5C), or later 610a/b with enlarged regions 615b-1 (fig. 6B), or layer 710 with regions 760 (fig. 7). Nordgren et al. teach of the similar configuration in figures 9C and figure 10 with layer 1010 and spaced enlarged regions 1004 and would be obvious for the enlarged regions to match the number of TGC depth zones to be controlled to effectively make adjustments to the TGC gain characteristic. Nordgren et al. teach of TGC sliders 326 configured to sense the application of a touch or touch with pressure along a side of the control to mimic the sliding motion of a real slider and pushing on one side or the other of the knobs with fingers could be sensed by a force sensor and be distinguished as an increase or decrease of time gain compensation and tap on the top or a touch on both side could center the gain where the tactile and/or audible feedback may be used to provide user feedback along with that given on an imaging display or touch panel [0031, 0032]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Nordgren et al. to modify Rust et al. to detect touch and adjust the gain as needed and provide user feedback along with displayed image for better diagnostics [Nordgren, 0031, 0032].
With respect to claim 7, Rust et al. in view of Chen et al. teach of a beamformer 50 wherein the TGC amplifier are located prior to the beamformer in the receive echo signal where the system passively scans the patient by monitoring signals received with the transducers directed by the beamformer to receive signals from each region [Rust, 0035, 0050].
With respect to claim 8, Rust et al. do not teach of the light associated with the enlarged regions and changes to the TGC gain. Nordgren et al. teach of the system comprising a light associated with the one or more enlarged regions such as an LED [0028, 0029] that would allow displayed graphics to be visible through the sealing layer of the enlarged regions and provide indication of the TGC gain characteristic [0032]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Nordgren et al. to modify Rust et al. to detect touch and adjust the gain as needed and provide user feedback along with displayed image for better diagnostics [Nordgren, 0031, 0032].
With respect to claims 9-11, Rust et al in view of Chen et al. teach of the source of a TGC gain characteristic to further comprise a TGC memory wherein the memory is adapted to provide a nominal initial TGC characteristic at the beginning of the ultrasound procedure and the TGC characteristic is adapted to be adjusted by the TGC control circuit during the procedure [Rust, 0042, 0043] or controlling the TGC characteristic where the analog and digital gains are adjusted to optimize brightness of the image and together implement gain control changes effected by the user [0050].
With respect to claims 12-14, Rust et al. do not explicitly teach of the touch sensors. Nordgren et al. teach of a control panel for use with medical diagnostic equipment where the control panel 300 includes a plurality of user control areas 306 at fixed location along a control surface of the control panel 300 including a plurality of separate or discrete capacitive touch sensors forming the capacitive touch layer [0027, 0031]. Nordgren et al. teach of TGC sliders 326 configured to sense the application of a touch or touch with pressure along a side of the control to mimic the sliding motion of a real slider and pushing on one side or the other of the knobs with fingers could be sensed by a force sensor and be distinguished as an increase or decrease of time gain compensation and tap on the top or a touch on both side could center the gain where the tactile and/or audible feedback may be used to provide user feedback along with that given on an imaging display or touch panel [0031, 0032]. Nordgren et al. therefore teach of the touch sensors being adapted to provide different amounts of TGC gain adjustment by increasing/decreasing or tapping on the top sides to center the gain. Nordgren et al. also teach of the elongated structure or the capacitive touch layer 510c with periodically space enlarged regions 522c-1, 552c-2 (fig. 5C), or later 610a/b with enlarged regions 615b-1 (fig. 6B), or layer 710 with regions 760 (fig. 7). Nordgren et al. teach of the similar configuration in figures 9C and figure 10 with layer 1010 and spaced enlarged regions 1004 and would be obvious for the enlarged regions to match the number of TGC depth zones to be controlled to effectively make adjustments to the TGC gain characteristic. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, if the touch sensors are located lower on the enlarged region, this would provide better contact and pressure with respect to the elongated structure and provide greater TGC gain adjustment than touch sensors located higher on the enlarged region and away from the elongated structure where, as pressure is sensed on the slider and pushing on one side or the other of the knobs with fingers could be sensed by the knob and be distinguished as an increase or decrease of TGC [0032]. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, pushing on one side or the other of the knobs with respect to the touch sensors with fingers would allow the TGC gain to be increased/decreased. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Nordgren et al. to modify Rust et al. to detect touch and adjust the gain as needed and provide user feedback along with displayed image for better diagnostics [Nordgren, 0031, 0032].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797