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 § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hague (WO-2020150253-A1).
In regards to claim 1, Haque teaches an apparatus comprising: (abstract)
analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuitry having an output terminal; (100 fig. 1, ‘ultrasonic imaging system’; para(s) [0084-0087])
beamforming circuitry including: (para(s) [0005, 0264]; fig(s) 14, 15, 18(A-B), 23A)
delay circuitry having a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output terminal, the first input terminal of the delay circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the ADC circuitry; (para(s) [0125, 0143, 0143-0162]; fig(s) 10 (A-B), 11(A-B), 13(A-B), 15
amplifier circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the amplifier circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the delay circuitry; and (618 fig. 11B, ‘low noise amplifier (LNA)’)
summation circuitry having an input terminal coupled to the output terminal of the amplifier circuitry; and (para(s) [0125, 0143, 0146, 0143-0162]; ‘ the reflected signal is received by the transducer, the signal is converted to voltage and amplified and digitized by an analog to digital converter (ADC). These received signals are also known as RF signals. These RF signals can be delayed by xn (e.g., xl, x2, x3, x4 ...) and summed to form a scan line, e.g., Al, A2, etc. in Fig. 14’, ‘beam data (i.e., scan line data) from: Al, Bl, and Cl; A2, B2, and C2; A3, B3, and C3, etc., which are delayed, weighted, and summed to form the final beam output to allow elevation plane focusing.’)
beamforming control circuitry coupled to the second input terminal of the delay circuitry, the beamforming control circuitry configured to calculate a delay value based on a piecewise delay profile and provide the delay value at the second input terminal of the delay circuitry. (para(s) [0144, 0162], ‘the RF samples are delayed, for example, with a delay profile along the Y direction, and the resulting signal can be weighted and summed to form a scan line’, wherein §0162: "For the Piecewise linear delays, the delay profile can be separated into at least 3 segments where the adjacent elements in a given segment have a fixed delay relative to one another. This method can allow for a better approximation of the parabolic delay profile by including multiple linear delay segments’; fig 23, ‘fig 23A shows beam plots/elevation beam plots of a simulated 24x128 matrix array of transducer elements with 0° lateral steering (left panel) and 45° lateral steering (right panel))
In regards to claim 2, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the delay circuitry is coarse delay circuitry, the beamforming circuitry further including fine delay circuitry having a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output terminal, the first input terminal of the fine delay circuitry is coupled to the output terminal of the coarse delay circuitry, the second input terminal of the fine delay circuitry is coupled to the beamforming control circuitry, and the output terminal of the fine delay circuitry is coupled to the input terminal of the amplifier circuitry. (para [0158], ‘programmable delays along the elevation direction can be implemented, where the elevation delays can be a summation of two delays, e.g., a coarse, linear delay and a fine, arbitrary delay.’)
In regards to claim 3, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the beamforming circuitry includes a plurality of delay profiles having a plurality of segments and an initial delay value, and a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value. (para [0162], ‘For the Piecewise linear delays, the delay profile can be separated into at least 3 segments where the adjacent elements in a given segment have a fixed delay relative to one another. This method can allow for a better approximation of the parabolic delay profile by including multiple linear delay segments’; para [0159], ‘The slope of the coarse delay, Dt, can be calculated such that the fine delay can be used to give a good approximation of the perfect 2D delays’; fig. 23)
In regards to claim 5, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the input terminal of the amplifier circuitry is a first input terminal, the amplifier circuitry further having a second input terminal, the beamforming control circuitry is coupled to the second input terminal of the amplifier circuitry, and the beamforming control circuitry further configured to calculate a gain value based on a piecewise expansion profile and a reference gain profile. (Haque: para [0188], ‘the LNAs 1811 may operate in a charge sensing mode and each have a programmable gain that may be configured in real time to provide gain compensation.’)
In regards to claim 7, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 1, (see claim rejection 1) wherein the ADC circuitry further having an input terminal, the summation circuitry further having an output terminal, and the apparatus is further comprising: transmitter circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal; a transducer having a terminal coupled to the input terminal of the ADC circuitry and the output terminal of the transmitter circuitry; and programmable circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the programmable circuitry is coupled to the output terminal of the summation circuitry, the output terminal of the programmable circuitry is coupled to the input terminal of the transmitter circuitry. (para [0125], ‘the 2 transducer elements 502 are on one substrate 504, to an ASIC containing transmit and receive and other functions’, see fig. 11A)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Cogan (WO-2014182567-A1).
Haque teaches:
In regards to claim 4, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 3, (see claim rejection 3)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque does not teach:
wherein the beamforming control circuitry includes accumulator circuitry configured to determine the delay value of a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial delay value based on a depth of the focus point in an image.
Cogan teaches:
wherein the beamforming control circuitry includes accumulator circuitry configured to determine the delay value of a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial delay value based on a depth of the focus point in an image. (para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Cogan to provide a method for determining the delay value by utilizing an accumulator for a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Price (US-20190361102-A1), in further view of, Cogan (WO-2014182567-A1).
In regards to claim 6, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 5, (see claim rejection 5)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque does not teach:
wherein the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value, and the beamforming control circuitry includes:
accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and
indexer circuitry configured to determine a gain value for the channel and the focus point by at least one of expanding or compressing gain values of the reference gain profile.
Price teaches:
indexer circuitry configured to determine a gain value for the channel and the focus point by at least one of expanding or compressing gain values of the reference gain profile. (Price: ‘using piecewise linear gain/apodization profiles para(s) [0089, 0101 0102])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Price to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Price does not teach:
wherein the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value, and the beamforming control circuitry includes:
accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and
Cogan teaches:
wherein the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value, and the beamforming control circuitry includes: (‘accumulating the slope value of the linear function to implement the values of the profile.’; para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and (‘accumulating the slope value of the linear function to implement the values of the profile.’; para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Cogan to combine the technique and methods to Haque & Price’s techniques to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 8-9, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haque (WO-2020150253-A1).
In regards to claim 8, Haque teaches an apparatus comprising: (abstract)
analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuitry having an output terminal; (100 fig. 1, ‘ultrasonic imaging system’; para(s) [0084-0087])
beamforming circuitry including: (para(s) [0005, 0264]; fig(s) 14, 15, 18(A-B), 23A)
delay circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the delay circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the ADC circuitry; (para(s) [0125, 0143, 0143-0162]; fig(s) 10 (A-B), 11(A-B), 13(A-B), 15)
amplifier circuitry having a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output terminal, the first input terminal of the amplifier circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the delay circuitry; and (618 fig. 11B, ‘low noise amplifier (LNA)’)
summation circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the summation circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the amplifier circuitry; and (para(s) [0125, 0143, 0146, 0143-0162]; ‘ the reflected signal is received by the transducer, the signal is converted to voltage and amplified and digitized by an analog to digital converter (ADC). These received signals are also known as RF signals. These RF signals can be delayed by xn (e.g., xl, x2, x3, x4 ...) and summed to form a scan line, e.g., Al, A2, etc. in Fig. 14’, ‘beam data (i.e., scan line data) from: Al, Bl, and Cl; A2, B2, and C2; A3, B3, and C3, etc., which are delayed, weighted, and summed to form the final beam output to allow elevation plane focusing.’)
beamforming control circuitry coupled to the second input terminal of the amplifier circuitry, the beamforming control circuitry configured to calculate a gain value based on a reference gain profile and a piecewise expansion profile. (para(s) [0144, 0162]; fig 23A; para [0188], ‘the LNAs 1811 may operate in a charge sensing mode and each have a programmable gain that may be configured in real time to provide gain compensation.’)
In regards to claim 9, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 8, (see claim rejection 8) wherein the delay circuitry is coarse delay circuitry, the beamforming circuitry further including fine delay circuitry having a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output terminal, the first input terminal of the fine delay circuitry is coupled to the output terminal of the coarse delay circuitry, the second input terminal of the fine delay circuitry is coupled to the beamforming control circuitry, and the output terminal of the fine delay circuitry is coupled to the input terminal of the amplifier circuitry. (para [0158], ‘programmable delays along the elevation direction can be implemented, where the elevation delays can be a summation of two delays, e.g., a coarse, linear delay and a fine, arbitrary delay.’)
In regards to claim 12, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 8, (see claim rejection 8) wherein the input terminal of the delay circuitry is a first input terminal, the delay circuitry further having a second input terminal, the beamforming control circuitry is coupled to the second input terminal of the delay circuitry, and the beamforming control circuitry further configured to calculate a delay value based on a piecewise delay profile. (para [0144], ‘he RF samples are delayed, for example, with a delay profile along the Y direction, and the resulting signal can be weighted and summed to form a scan line’; para [0162], ‘For the Piecewise linear delays, the delay profile can be separated into at least 3 segments where the adjacent elements in a given segment have a fixed delay relative to one another. This method can allow for a better approximation of the parabolic delay profile by including multiple linear delay segments",; see fig. 23).
In regards to claim 14, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 8, (see claim rejection 8) wherein the ADC circuitry further having an input terminal, the summation circuitry further having an output terminal, and the apparatus is further comprising: transmitter circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal; a transducer having a terminal coupled to the input terminal of the ADC circuitry and the output terminal of the transmitter circuitry; and programmable circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the programmable circuitry is coupled to the output terminal of the summation circuitry, the output terminal of the programmable circuitry is coupled to the input terminal of the transmitter circuitry. (para [0125], ‘the 2 transducer elements 502 are on one substrate 504, to an ASIC containing transmit and receive and other functions’, see fig. 11A)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Price (US-20190361102-A1).
Haque teaches:
In regards to claim 10, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 8, (see claim rejection 8)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque does not teach:
wherein the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value.
Price teaches:
wherein the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value. (para [0101], ‘As in the delay decoder, the apodization decoder updates the fitting parameters at a limited rate (e.g. every Ta cycles) to reduce bandwidth’; para [0102], ‘When the parameters are updated infrequently, errors are reduced by making them piecewise linear functions of time (instead of holding them constant between updates). The decoder stores the current value of x0[n] and 2/W[n] and accumulates temporal differences that it receives every Ta cycles from the sequencer’; para [0089], ‘the delay command for each channel is piecewise linear, though each channel has its own slope.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Price to provide a method to the method of Haque fpr implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Price (US-20190361102-A1), in further view of, Cogan (WO-2014182567-A1).
Haque & Price teach:
In regards to claim 11, Haque & Price teach an apparatus of claim 10, (see claim rejection 10)
indexer circuitry configured to determine a gain value for the channel and the focus point by at least one of expanding or compressing gain values of the reference gain profile. (Price: ‘using piecewise linear gain/apodization profiles para(s) [0089, 0101 0102])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque & Price to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque & Price don’t teach:
wherein the beamforming control circuitry includes: accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and
Cogan teaches:
wherein the beamforming control circuitry includes: accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and (‘accumulating the slope value of the linear function to implement the values of the profile.’; para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Cogan to combine the technique and methods to Haque & Price’s techniques to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Cogan (WO-2014182567-A1).
Hague teaches
In regards to claim 13, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 12, (see claim rejection 12)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque does not teach:
wherein the piecewise delay profile has a plurality of segments and an initial delay value, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value, and the beamforming control circuitry includes accumulator circuitry configured to determine the delay value of a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial delay value based on a depth of the focus point in an image.
Cogan teaches:
wherein the piecewise delay profile has a plurality of segments and an initial delay value, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value, and the beamforming control circuitry includes accumulator circuitry configured to determine the delay value of a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial delay value based on a depth of the focus point in an image. (para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Cogan to provide a method for determining the delay value by utilizing an accumulator for a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 15-16, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Haque (WO-2020150253-A1).
In regards to claim 15, Haque teaches an apparatus comprising: (abstract)
a transducer having a terminal; (100 fig. 1, ‘ultrasonic imaging system’; para(s) [0084-0087]; fig. 2)
memory circuitry including a portion of memory having piecewise delay profiles; (218a fig(s) 1-2)
analog-to-digital converter (ADC) circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the ADC circuitry coupled to the terminal of the transducer; and (100 fig. 1, ‘ultrasonic imaging system’; para(s) [0084-0087])
beamforming circuitry including: (para(s) [0005, 0264]; fig(s) 14, 15, 18(A-B), 23A)
delay circuitry having a first input terminal, a second input terminal, and an output terminal, the first input terminal of the delay circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the ADC circuitry, the second input terminal of the delay circuitry coupled to the portion of memory; (para(s) [0125, 0143, 0143-0162]; fig(s) 10 (A-B), 11(A-B), 13(A-B), 14-15, 18(A-B), 23A)
amplifier circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the amplifier circuitry coupled to the output terminal of the delay circuitry; and (618 fig. 11B, ‘low noise amplifier (LNA)’)
summation circuitry having an input terminal coupled to the output terminal of the amplifier circuitry. (para(s) [0125, 0143, 0146, 0143-0162]; ‘ the reflected signal is received by the transducer, the signal is converted to voltage and amplified and digitized by an analog to digital converter (ADC). These received signals are also known as RF signals. These RF signals can be delayed by xn (e.g., xl, x2, x3, x4 ...) and summed to form a scan line, e.g., Al, A2, etc. in Fig. 14’, ‘beam data (i.e., scan line data) from: Al, Bl, and Cl; A2, B2, and C2; A3, B3, and C3, etc., which are delayed, weighted, and summed to form the final beam output to allow elevation plane focusing.’)
In regards to claim 16, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 15, (see claim rejection 15) wherein the piecewise delay profiles include a plurality of delay profiles having a plurality of segments and an initial delay value, and a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value. . (para [0162], ‘For the Piecewise linear delays, the delay profile can be separated into at least 3 segments where the adjacent elements in a given segment have a fixed delay relative to one another. This method can allow for a better approximation of the parabolic delay profile by including multiple linear delay segments’; para [0159], ‘The slope of the coarse delay, Dt, can be calculated such that the fine delay can be used to give a good approximation of the perfect 2D delays’; fig. 23)
In regards to claim 20, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 15, (see claim rejection 15) wherein the summation circuitry further having an output terminal, and the apparatus is further comprising: transmitter circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the output terminal of the transmitter circuitry is coupled to the terminal of the transducer and the input terminal of the ADC circuitry; and programmable circuitry having an input terminal and an output terminal, the input terminal of the programmable circuitry is coupled to the output terminal of the summation circuitry, the output terminal of the programmable circuitry is coupled to the input terminal of the transmitter circuitry. (para [0125], ‘the 2 transducer elements 502 are on one substrate 504, to an ASIC containing transmit and receive and other functions’, see fig. 11A)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Cogan (WO-2014182567-A1).
Hague teaches
In regards to claim 17, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 16, (see claim rejection 16)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque does not teach:
further comprising accumulator circuitry configured to determine a delay value of a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial delay value based on a depth of the focus point in an image.
Cogan teaches:
further comprising accumulator circuitry configured to determine a delay value of a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial delay value based on a depth of the focus point in an image. (para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Cogan to provide a method for determining the delay value by utilizing an accumulator for a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Price (US-20190361102-A1).
Haque teaches:
In regards to claim 18, Haque teaches an apparatus of claim 15, (see claim rejection 15)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque does not teach:
wherein the input terminal of the portion of memory is a first portion of memory, the memory circuitry further including: a second portion of memory having a reference gain profile; and a third portion of memory having a piecewise expansion profile, the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value.
Price teaches:
wherein the input terminal of the portion of memory is a first portion of memory, the memory circuitry further including: a second portion of memory having a reference gain profile; and a third portion of memory having a piecewise expansion profile, the piecewise expansion profile includes a plurality of segments and an initial expansion factor, a segment of the plurality of segments has a segment duration and a slope value. (para [0101], ‘As in the delay decoder, the apodization decoder updates the fitting parameters at a limited rate (e.g. every Ta cycles) to reduce bandwidth’; para [0102], ‘When the parameters are updated infrequently, errors are reduced by making them piecewise linear functions of time (instead of holding them constant between updates). The decoder stores the current value of x0[n] and 2/W[n] and accumulates temporal differences that it receives every Ta cycles from the sequencer’; para [0089], ‘the delay command for each channel is piecewise linear, though each channel has its own slope.’)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Price to provide a method to the method of Haque fpr implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haque (WO-2020150253-A1), in view of, Price (US-20190361102-A1), in further view of, Cogan (WO-2014182567-A1).
Haque & Price teach:
In regards to claim 19, Haque & Price teach an apparatus of claim 18, further comprising: (see claim rejection 18)
indexer circuitry configured to determine a gain value for the channel and the focus point by at least one of expanding or compressing gain values of the reference gain profile. (Price: ‘using piecewise linear gain/apodization profiles para(s) [0089, 0101 0102])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Haque & Price to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Haque & Price don’t teach:
accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and
Cogan teaches:
accumulator circuitry configured to determine an expansion factor for a channel and a focus point by accumulating the slope value starting from the initial expansion factor based on a location of the focus point in an image; and (‘accumulating the slope value of the linear function to implement the values of the profile.’; para [0048], ‘FIG. 10 shows an exemplary block diagram of a delay update timing controller 250 that can be implemented within each of the SAPs (e.g., SAPs 48). With respect to FIG. 10, the controller 250 can include and regulate at least one counter, e.g., a start counter 252, a stop counter 254, a rate counter 256, and the like, for regulating the timing of the piecewise linear approximation of the delay updates.[ ... ] The controller 250 can apply an initial delay profile to the delay elements (e.g., delay elements 46) associated with each of the transducer elements 202, which remains constant for a period of time specified by the start counter 252. Once the start counter 252 reaches a specified value, e.g., a value predetermined by the controller 250, or counts down from a specified value to 0, the delay within the delay elements of the sub-aperture processor can be updated according to the groups 204 to which the transducer elements 202 are assigned’; fig. 10)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention for Cogan to combine the technique and methods to Haque & Price’s techniques to provide a method of implementing transducers/ 3-D pMUT Arrays, and Beam forming methods to form received Imaging of the desired source or sources through a medium.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The references cited Pawlak (US-20210329373-A1), Munoz (US-20250061317-A1), and Goyal (US-20210319319-A1) references further describes Beam forming methods to form images as described by the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN C BUTLER whose telephone number is (571)270-3973. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5.
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, Stephanie E Bloss can be reached at (571)272-3555. 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.
/K.C.B/Examiner, Art Unit 2852
/STEPHANIE E BLOSS/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852
Prosecution Insights