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 Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are each objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of each claim, the phrase “the steps” lacks proper antecedence basis, it is suggested to delete “the”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3-7 and 9 are 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 3 recites in part “… method of claim 1, further comprising the steps of: superimposing multiple shear-wave speed data”, however, claim 1 does not set forth shear-wave speed data, as such, the step of superimposing multiple shear-wave speed data lacks clarity. It is to be noted that claim 2 does set forth a step of calculating a speed of each shear wave, however, the claim does not refer to the speed of each shear wave as “shear-wave data”. If this was Applicant’s intent, it is suggested to amend claim 3 to depend on claim 1 and use same terminology with reference to shear-wave speed data throughout the claims, to overcome this rejection.
Claims 4-7 are likewise rejected, as they include all limitations and deficiencies of claim 3 noted above.
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially similar rationale as claim 3, because the recitation “… method of claim 8, further comprising the steps of: superimposing multiple shear-wave speed data” is deficient for similar reason(s) noted in claim 3 above, i.e., claim 8 does not set forth shear-wave speed data. Moreover, the recitation “the inlier” lacks proper antecedence basis as neither claim 9, nor claim 8 previously sets forth “an inlier”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Labyed et al., US 2017042511 A1 ("Labyed").
Regarding claims 1 and 10, Labyed discloses a shear wave ([0029]) parameter measurement method using an ultrasound wave device ([0021]) discloses as comprising an ultrasound probe configured to acquire multiple shear wave data by repeating multiple shear wave acquisition sequences; and a processor configured to calculate a mechanical parameter of the shear wave data acquired through the ultrasound probe (Fig. 10, [0082]-0083]), the shear wave parameter measurement method comprising the steps, performed by the ultrasound wave device, of:
acquiring multiple shear wave data by repeating multiple shear wave acquisition sequences ([0030]); and
calculating mechanical parameters of the acquired multiple shear wave data ([0074]),
wherein the multiple shear wave acquisition sequences comprise a first sequence and a second sequence ([0030]),
the first sequence comprises operations of performing first acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) pushing to generate a shear wave in a region of interest (act 32, [0027]) and detecting, from multiple detecting lines, the shear wave generated by the first ARFI pushing (act 34, [0033]), and
the second sequence includes operations of performing second ARFI pushing to generate a shear wave in the region of interest and detecting, from the multiple detecting lines, the shear wave generated by the second ARFI pushing ([0030]).
Regarding claim 2, see Labyed [0060] regarding calculating a value or values of any viscoelastic parameter and [0063] regarding velocity, delay (i.e., lag), shear velocity (i.e., speed of shear-wave) and Youngs modulus (i.e. a specific type of elastic modulus).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Applicant cited Kong et al., US 20200297319 A1 ("Kong").
Regarding claim 8, Kong discloses a shear wave parameter measurement method using an ultrasound wave device ([0005]), the shear wave parameter measurement method comprising the steps, performed by the ultrasound wave device (1), of: acquiring multiple shear wave data by repeating multiple shear wave acquisition sequences ([0139]); and calculating a mechanical parameter of the acquired multiple shear wave data ([0196]), wherein the multiple shear wave acquisition sequences comprise a first sequence and a second sequence ([0139] and Fig. 10), the first sequence comprises operations of performing acoustic radiation force impulse (ARFI) pushing (first push pulse 520) to generate a shear wave in a region of interest and detecting, from a first detecting line (Tx1), the shear wave generated by the first ARFI pushing, and the second sequence comprises operations of performing second ARFI pushing (second push pulse 520) to generate a shear wave in a region of interest and detecting, from a second detecting line (Tx2), the shear wave generated by the second ARFI pushing.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labyed as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fan et al., US 20130345565 A1 (“Fan”) and in view of Sandrin et al., US 20210330297 A1 (“Sandrin”) .
Regarding claims 3-7, Labyed does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claims 3-7, however, these limitations amount to applying known techniques of data/statistical analysis that involve inliers and outliers and removal of outliers, to yield predictable result of increasing accuracy of measurement. For instance, Fan discloses a known prior art technique of superimposing shear-wave data to determine inliers and handling outliers, see e.g. Fig. 4 and associated discussion in [0068]. Sandrin on the other discloses that it was known in the prior art to determine whether a measurement associated with a depth is valid based on validity of at least one measurement ([0015] - examiner notes that a valid measurement is an inlier and this teaching encompasses determining validity based on at least one inlier to determine a corresponding depth is a valid position) of a viscoelastic property of the medium, such as speed of shear wave ([0018]), calculating a validation index using valid data [0114] regarding validating calculation of the viscoelastic medium property from valid depth ranges, and further wherein validity can alternatively be based on signal to noise ratio being greater than a predetermined value ([0029]).
In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the known technique of superimposing multiple shear-wave speed data, so as to determine inliers and handle any outliers, as this modification involves applying a well-known technique(s) of data analysis as exemplified by Fan, to yield predictable results. It would have further been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have determined an invalid position if none of the shear-wave data associated with a corresponding depth is valid or a valid position if at least one shear-wave data associated with the depth is valid or considered measuring signal-to-noise ratio to determine inlier of shear-wave speed data, and/or calculate a validation index based on or using valid shear-wave speed data, as this modification also involves applying a well-known technique(s) to yield predictable results as exemplified by Sandrin and the use of signal-to-noise was considered an alternative to the use of shear-wave speed data.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Labyed as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Fan.
Regarding claim 9, Labyed does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 8, however, these limitations amount to applying known techniques of data/statistical analysis that involve inliers and outliers and removal of outliers, to yield predictable result of increasing accuracy of measurement. For instance, Fan discloses a known prior art technique of superimposing shear-wave data to determine inliers and handling outliers, see e.g. Fig. 4 and associated discussion in [0068]. In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the known technique of superimposing multiple shear-wave speed data, so as to determine inliers and handle any outliers, as this modification involves applying a well-known technique(s) of data analysis as exemplified by Fan, to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights