Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12-23 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Claims 5 and 10-11 are cancelled, and claims 1-4, 6-9, and 12-23 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 11/20/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/18/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Hennersperger is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 2-4, 6-9, 13-14, 17, and 19-21 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Hossack is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 15-16 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2, “the parameters” should be “the set of imaging parameters” for clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-9, 13-17, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al. (US 20210186457 A1, published June24, 2021) in view of Hossack et al. (US 5873830 A, published February 23, 1999), hereinafter referred to as Hennersperger and Hossack, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Hennersperger teaches a system (Fig. 4-5) for providing selective image focusing, the system comprising:
a console configured to be operably associated with an ultrasound imaging device and exchange data therewith (see para. 0084 – “As shown in FIG. 4, the imaging system 400 includes a catheter 401 and a console 402.”),
the ultrasound imaging device comprising an ultrasound transducer unit comprising a rotating probe or a two-dimensional (2D) matrix array capable of circumferential three-dimensional (3D) imaging (see para. 0137 – “The catheter, including the array of acoustic transducers of transducer array 1314, may rotate circumferentially about a longitudinal axis of the catheter…”),
wherein the console comprises a controller (see para. 0087 – “The console 402 design can include three sub-units: a case 406, an ultrasound module 407, and a workstation 408 for processing and imaging.”), and
a hardware processor coupled to non-transitory, computer-readable memory containing instructions executable by the processor (Fig. 4-5; see para. 0089 – “The design of the imaging work station 408 further includes server hardware 408A, an operating system 408B and other software such as back-end software 408C and third party software 408D for data analysis, extraction and compilation of data and for generation of image data from the result analysis as well as all the necessary processing and storage capability that enable the embedded US module 407.”) to cause the controller to:
capture planewave or diverging wave acquisition data over a circumferential 360-degree imaging region (Fig. 13C and 14; see para. 0138 – “Upon rotating, the catheter may transmit, by an array of acoustic transducers at a set of different transmission angular positions (angle α, 1318) a plurality of incident acoustic wave signals representative of one or more plane waves of plane wave group 1310.”);
define a set of imaging parameters associated with operation of the ultrasound transducer unit to achieve an imaging characteristic of one or more images captured via the ultrasound imaging device for a first selected region of interest (see para. 0075 – “The imaging protocols and algorithms can generate a two-dimensional image of a selected region, a sub-volumetric three-dimensional image or a full three-dimensional volumetric image around the catheter.”; see para. 0124 "Thereby, the achievable angular spatial resolution within a rotationally-acquired 3D volume may be directly related to the angle ϕ between individually acquired 2D images around the catheter...");
determine at least one angular or steered beam direction of the transducer unit during one rotation of the 360-degree imaging region (Fig. 13C-14, transmission rotation angle 1406 as beam direction);
synchronize adjustment of the set of imaging parameters with the determined angular or beam direction to dynamically define and/or adjust the set of imaging parameters during the course of the rotation for selective image focusing within the 360-degree imaging region (Fig. 7; see para. 0103 – “The image planning also includes the rotary planning to synchronize the rotation of the imaging sensors with the ultrasound transducer and response collection sensors at S7004.”).
Hennersperger teaches defining imaging parameters at least one angular or steered beam direction of a selected region of interest (ROI), but does not explicitly teach adjusting imaging parameters at a second selected ROI such that the image is optimized at the second selected ROI as compared to the first selected ROI.
Whereas, Hossack, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches selectively adjust the set of imaging parameters to provide, in the at least one angular or steered beam direction, at least one of a specific directional focusing and an imaging quality at a second selected region of interest such that at least one of the imaging characteristic and the image quality is optimized for one or more directions at the second selected region of interest as compared to the first selected region of interest (see col. 5, lines 56-62 – “First, a region of interest in an ultrasound image is selected (step 210). Next, the system selectively applies a first set of imaging parameters inside the region of interest to improve spatial and/or temporal resolution inside the region of interest, said first set being different from a second set of imaging parameters applied outside the region of interest (step 220).”; see col. 6, lines 30-33 – “More than one independent region of interest can be Selected. For example, regions of interest can be Selected, either manually or automatically, around fast moving, Slow moving, and intermediate moving portions of the image.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified defining imaging parameters at least one angular or steered beam direction of a selected region of interest (ROI), as disclosed in Hennersperger, by also adjusting imaging parameters at a second selected ROI such that the image is optimized at the second selected ROI as compared to the first selected ROI, as disclosed in Hossack. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve both Spatial and temporal resolution within the region of interest, as taught in Hossack (see col. 7, lines 5-7).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the parameters comprise planewave or diverging wave front characteristics (Fig. 13C and 14; see para. 0138 – “Upon rotating, the catheter may transmit, by an array of acoustic transducers at a set of different transmission angular positions (angle α, 1318) a plurality of incident acoustic wave signals representative of one or more plane waves of plane wave group 1310.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the planewave or diverging wave characteristics comprise at least one of a virtual source focus, a distance, an opening angle, a steering angle, a number of individual firings, a transmit/receive pattern, a transmit firing rate, an imaging depth, a rotational velocity, a rotational position, and a 3-dimensional (3D) wave direction steering (Fig. 16, angular distance between slices; see para. 0139 – “As the catheter 1301 is rotating continuously around its longitudinal axis, x, transmit and receive rotational angles may be different to each other, and one receive position reconstruction may include echo data from multiple transmit rotation positions. The catheter 1301 may have an angular coverage area 1402 for rotation angle defined by beam shape receive rotation angle ø 1404, transmission rotation angle ø 1406, and beam shape of transmission angle 1408 corresponding to catheter rotation axis 1410 of catheter imaging tip 1401.”; see para. 0145 – “To select planewaves to be considered for the beamforming of a specific catheter rotation speed…”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the imaging characteristic is associated with at least one of an angular resolution, a field of view, an imaging depth, a transmit/receive pattern, a transmit firing rate, and a planewave opening angle (see para. 0124 "Thereby, the achievable angular spatial resolution within a rotationally-acquired 3D volume may be directly related to the angle ϕ between individually acquired 2D images [firing rate] around the catheter...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the imaging characteristic is selected and adjusted by dynamically adapting the transmit/receive pattern in at least one of the first and second selected region of interest (see para. 0131 – “With respect to selecting the appropriate set of transmit angles αi, the goal is to minimize the number of required angles while maximizing the resulting image quality.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Hennersperger further teaches wherein at least one of the first and second selected region of interest is defined based on one or more anatomical features (see para. 0077 – “By implementing multiple configurable ultrasound transmitters using an ultrasound transducer array, the disclosed system is able to produce strong acoustic pushes to specific target areas by focusing the transmitted energy. As a result, data can be collected to generate intra-cardiac slice-based imaging using the rotation of the ultrasound transducer array around the catheter location…the tissue parameters [anatomical features] of the areas of interest of the atrium…”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the set of parameters is dynamically adjusted by optimizing imaging depth and imaging resolution to provide a focused view of at least one of the first and second selected region of interest (see para. 0124 – “Thereby, the achievable angular spatial resolution within a rotationally-acquired 3D volume may be directly related to the angle φ [parameter] between individually acquired 2D images around the catheter…”; see para. 0177 – “In one embodiment, the generated image may represent an imaging depth as a function of: (a) a transmit pulsing rate of the imaging console…[parameters].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the imaging resolution comprises one or more of depth, lateral resolution, and angular resolution (see para. 0124 - "Thereby, the achievable angular spatial resolution within a rotationally-acquired 3D volume may be directly related to the angle ϕ between individually acquired 2D images around the catheter...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the controller is capable of controlling a rotary motor operably coupled to the ultrasound transducer unit to enable a continuous rotation or a positioning of the ultrasound transducer unit Fig. 5; see para. 0094 "The catheter body 404 can include a concentric catheter with a core that is a rotating catheter capable of transferring rotation from a rotary motor 502-1 to the ultrasound transducerarray501-2 and an electrical cabling 501 4 inside the rotating catheter for electrically coupling the ultrasound transducer array 501-2 and other sensors and control wires to the connector 501-1.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Hennersperger further teaches wherein, during the course of one rotation
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, Hossack further teaches wherein at least one of the imaging characteristic and the image quality is optimized over a continuous range of regions from the first selected region of interest to the second selected region of interest (see col. 5, lines 56-62 – “First, a region of interest in an ultrasound image is selected (step 210). Next, the system selectively applies a first set of imaging parameters inside the region of interest to improve spatial and/or temporal resolution inside the region of interest, said first set being different from a second set of imaging parameters applied outside the region of interest (step 220).”; see col. 6, lines 30-33 – “More than one independent region of interest can be Selected. For example, regions of interest can be Selected, either manually or automatically, around fast moving, Slow moving, and intermediate moving portions of the image.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, Hossack further teaches wherein at least one of the imaging characteristic and the image quality is optimized via linear interpolation of the set of parameters over the range of regions from the first selected region of interest to the second selected region of interest (see col. 13, lines 25-31 – “Referring now to FIG. 5, preferably, in the region 530, the pixel locations closest to region 510 are determined by a weighted sum of image data from the first and the second image data, wherein the first image data is emphasized, while at a location closest to region 520, the second image data is emphasized (i.e., linear interpolation of the first and second data depending on position).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 17, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the controller is further configured to synchronize a firing rate and a firing direction of the ultrasound transducer unit, and wherein the image characteristic in the second selected region of interest is adjusted by dynamically adjusting a phase between at least a motor speed and a firing rate of the ultrasound transducer unit (see para. 0099 "The rotary motor 502-1 can be configured to control the rotation of the catheter tip 404 and synchronize the rotation with the transducer firing based on the plan of the procedure.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust a firing rate of the ultrasound transducer unit to thereby achieve a higher angular resolution in the selected region of interest (see para. 0124 "Thereby, the achievable angular spatial resolution within a rotationally-acquired 3D volume may be directly related to the angle ϕ between individually acquired 2D images [firing rate] around the catheter...").
Furthermore, regarding claim 20, Hennersperger further teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust a planewave or diverging wave front characteristics and a steering angle of the ultrasound transducer unit to thereby achieve a complex shape of an imaging volume in the selected region of interest (Fig. 14; see para. 0139 "The catheter 1301 may have an angular coverage area 1402 for rotation angle defined by beam shape receive rotation angle Φ 1404, transmission rotation angle ϕ 1406, and beam shape of transmission angle 1408 corresponding to catheter rotation axis 1410 of catheter imaging tip 1401.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 21, Hennersperger further teaches wherein a rotational velocity of the ultrasound transducer unit is varied by a mechanical change in the ultrasound transducer unit (see para. 0094 "The inner rotating section, within the acoustic housing 501-3, that includes the ultrasound transducer array 501-2 of the catheter tip 403, can rotate at a variable speed between 10 and 3,000 RPM.").
The motivation for claims 15-16 was shown previously in claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger in view of Hossack, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of M. Flesch et al, "4D in vivo ultrafast ultrasound imaging using a row-column addressed matrix and coherently-compounded orthogonal plane waves", Physics in Medicine and Biology, vol. 62, no. 11, pp. 4571-4588, May 2017, from IDS, hereinafter referred to as Flesch.
Regarding claim 12, Hennersperger in view of Hossack teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Hennersperger in view of Hossack inherently teaches activating and deactivation bias voltage selection of electrodes of a transducer array, but does not explicitly teach activating a row or column of a transducer array.
Whereas, Flesch, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is capable of controlling a bias voltage selectively applied to one or more of a plurality of at least one of first and second electrodes of a transducer comprising an array of individual imaging elements, wherein the bias voltage defines a voltage for a row or a column connected to the electrode to activate or deactivate imaging by the individual imaging elements in the row or column to define an angular imaging aperture (see pg. 4578, para. 2 "The final volumes was obtained by compounding either 1, 4, 16, or 36 tilted plane waves equally distributed within an angular range of-16 to +16 degrees for the 2D and the RCA [row-column addressing] matrix and transmitted in sequential order by increasing angle figure 5.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified activating an ultrasound transducer array, as disclosed in Hennersperger in view of Hossack, by activating a row or column of a transducer array, as disclosed in Flesch. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the number of independent imaging channels, as taught in Flesch (see Abstract; see Table 1).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger in view of Hossack, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Sumanaweera et al. (US 20050093859 A1, published May 5, 2005), hereinafter referred to as Sumanaweera.
Regarding claim 18, Hennersperger in view of Hossack teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Hennersperger in view of Hossack teaches creating an image volume around the circumference, but does not explicitly teach creating an asymmetric imaging volume.
Whereas, Sumanaweera, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to adjust an imaging depth of the ultrasound transducer unit to thereby create an asymmetric imaging volume around the circumference to selectively perform imaging in a certain direction (see para. 0070 "Another image processing parameter is the sample volume used for generating a 3D representation. For example, an asymmetric sample volume is used for rendering.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified creating an image volume around the circumference, as disclosed in Hennersperger in view of Hossack, by creating an asymmetric imaging volume, as disclosed in Sumanaweera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to limit the amount of information in parallel to the viewing direction used for volume rendering, as taught in Sumanaweera (see para. 0068).
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger in view of Hossack, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Kesner et al. (US 20130190726 A1, published July 25, 2013), hereinafter referred to as Kesner.
Regarding claim 22, Hennersperger in view of Hossack teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 above.
Hennersperger in view of Hossack teaches rotating the ultrasound transducer unit, but does not explicitly teach friction introduced to the rotating of the ultrasound transducer unit.
Whereas, Kesner, in analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the mechanical change introduces friction inside the ultrasound transducer unit in one direction to slow rotation of the ultrasound transducer unit (see para. 0127 "Friction compensation can be accomplished using a Coulombic friction model for the catheter and then feeds forward the friction force FC, based on an observer that predicts the velocity.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified rotating the ultrasound transducer unit, as disclosed in Hennersperger in view of Hossack, by having friction introduced to the rotating of the ultrasound transducer unit, as disclosed in Kesner. One ofordinaryskill in theart would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve system performance in view of design constraints, as taught in Kesner (see para. 0074).
Furthermore, regarding claim 23, Kesner further teaches wherein the firing rate is varied to compensate for friction present inside the ultrasound transducer unit (see para. 0127 "Friction compensation can be accomplished using a Coulombic friction model for the catheter and then feeds forward the friction force Ffc, based on an observer that predicts the velocity.").
The motivation for claim 23 was shown previously in claim 22.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nair et al. (US 20150086098 A1, published March 26, 2015) discloses produce a 360° intravascular image, displaying the 360° intravascular image, selecting an area-of-interest within the image, and selecting a sub-set of the transducers to acquire the one type of data in the area-of-interest.
Schechter (US 20050043895 A1, published February 24, 2005) discloses optimal programming parameters are based on Doppler ultrasound quantification of velocity of multiple pre-selected myocardial regions during a cardiac cycle.
Napolitano et al. (US 20150073276 A1, published March 12, 2015) discloses the computation of image focus quality parameters, the SSC algorithm seeks to determine the optimal system sound speed which maximizes the overall lateral spatial resolution of the selected image region due to improved focusing.
Weber et al. (US 20200330076 A1, published October 22, 2020) discloses select a point or region of an image, and the ultrasound imaging parameters may then be controlled automatically to optimize the imaging for that particular region.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798