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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 07/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-22 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 3-22 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 04/08/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/07/2026 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 Barnes is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 3-4, 9, 13, and 15 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Cho is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 5 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Hirota is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 6-8 and 10 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Hancock is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 14, 20, and 22 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Konofagou is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 16 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Wang is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 17-19 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Duff is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 21 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 15, 18, 20, and 22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
For claim 1, “selected to preferentially increase” should be “selected to preferentially increase”, removing “preferentially” for clarity.
For claims 1, 5, 15, and 22, “the processor” should be “the hardware processor” for clarity.
For claim 20, the examiner assumes “the device” should be “the minimally invasive implantable device” (see claim 19) for clarity.
Although the courts have found that the use of the term “and/or” would not be indefinite, (Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Tollefsen, 219 Wis. 434 (1935)), the board did note that the preferred way of writing the claim is through use of “at least one of A and B" in the future. Therefore, the Examiner object to the terms "and/or" in claims 15 and 18 such that it is written in accordance with the courts preferred way.
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3-4, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Barnes et al. (US 4509526 A, published April 9, 1985), hereinafter referred to as Barnes.
Regarding claim 1, Barnes teaches a system for image sampling, the system comprising a hardware processor coupled to non-transitory, computer-readable memory containing instructions executable by the processor to cause the processor to receive data comprising a signal to be sampled from an imaging device and run an event-driven sampling algorithm causing the processor (see col. 21, lines 32-40 – “Briefly stated, the central processors are conventional devices including a microprocessor, 32K of dynamic random access memory ("RAM") a dynamic RAM control element, read only 35 memories (“ROM') with programming capacity to 64K, and standard miscellaneous timing and control logic. Suitable devices are available in the marketplace meeting these criteria and may be selected by the sys tem designer to meet the demands of the system;…”) to:
analyze the received data to identify one or more characteristics associated with the received data and further detect the occurrence of one or more events (see col. 3, lines 31-36 – “The system initially processes data at the first sampling rate while monitoring the velocity signal [received data]. Upon the occurrence of systolic velocities [characteristic] in excess [event] of the high threshold value for the first range, the system automatically adjusts the sampling rate to the second rate for further processing.”),
wherein the one or more events comprises a change in the one or more characteristics as compared to a defined threshold for the one or more characteristic (see col. 3, lines 31-36 – “The system initially processes data at the first sampling rate while monitoring the velocity signal [received data]. Upon the occurrence of systolic velocities [characteristic] in excess [event] of the high threshold value [defined threshold] for the first range, the system automatically adjusts the sampling rate to the second rate for further processing.” systolic velocity above high threshold value as event, and high threshold value of systolic velocity as defined threshold of characteristic),
wherein the defined threshold is selected to preferentially increase a sampling rate of the imaging device for a portion of the received data associated with a clinically relevant structure to be imaged than for other regions (see col. 3, lines 31-36 – “The system initially processes data at the first sampling rate while monitoring the velocity signal [received data]. Upon the occurrence of systolic velocities [characteristic] in excess [event] of the high threshold value [defined threshold] for the first range, the system automatically adjusts the sampling rate to the second rate for further processing.” Inherent and known in the art to increase sampling rate in order to measure higher velocities); and
tune the sampling rate to thereby selectively sample the received data signal at a different sampling rate for a different portion of the received data signal based on a detected occurrence of the one or more events (see col. 3, lines 31-36 – “The system initially processes data at the first sampling rate while monitoring the velocity signal. Upon the occurrence of systolic velocities in excess of the high threshold value for the first range, the system automatically adjusts the sampling rate to the second rate for further processing.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Barnes further teaches wherein the received data comprises analog voltage signals (see col. 28, lines 33-37 – “…the present system most preferably provides three data sampling rates for fast Fourier transformation of the analog Doppler signal, correlated with three ranges for anticipated systolic velocities (responsible for the analog Doppler signals).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Barnes further teaches wherein the received data comprises digitized voltage signals (see col. 28, lines 16-19 – “Irrespective of the precise design employed in respect of the FFT processor, per se, the same functions in combination with an analog-to-digital converter used to digitize analog Doppler signals.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Barnes further teaches wherein the defined threshold is a change in output voltage by a set parameter in a previously stored threshold value, wherein the threshold value is updated and stored when image sampling by the imaging device is triggered (see col. 3, lines 19-26 – “…selecting high and low threshold values for these separate velocity ranges; monitoring systolic velocity to determine its value within a given one of the ranges as measured with reference to the selected threshold values; and, adjusting the signal sampling rate for data analysis to a predetermined one of the plurality of sampling rates corresponding to the systolic velocity within the threshold values for that range.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Barnes further teaches wherein the imaging device comprises a transducer comprising an array of individual imaging elements (see col. 19, lines 10-12 – “The transducer probe 110 includes discrete transmitting and receiving crystals 282 and 284 [imaging elements], respectively…”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, Barnes further teaches wherein the imaging elements are acoustic sensors activated by the processor to transmit and/or receive a plurality of incident acoustic wave signals as wave data (see col. 29, lines 63-66 – “…causing the transmitting transducer crystal 282 to generate a 2.5 MHz, uninterrupted ultrasonic wave directed to the patient's ascending aorta…Transmitted ultrasonic energy is reflected during this period of active ejection, and principally by the red blood cells. Reflected energy is detected by receiving crystal 284…”).
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Cho et al. (US 20160066893 A1, published March 10, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Cho.
Regarding claim 5, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 4 above.
Barnes teaches tuning sampling parameters, but does not explicitly teach tuning one or more sampling parameters to minimize a data transmission rate and to maximize an image quality.
Whereas, Cho, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to:
access raw digitized voltage signals (Fig. 30; see para. 0373 – “The signal processing unit 120 may amplify the echo signal in each channel, and analog-to-digital convert an amplified response signal.”; see para. 0333 – “For example, the ultrasound probe 100 may transmit raw data, which is generated from an echo signal acquired from an object, to the cart type ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 200-1.”); and
tune one or more sampling parameters to minimize a data transmission rate and to maximize an image quality of a clinically relevant image (see para. 0107 – “A data transmission rate between the ultrasound probe 100 and the ultrasound image providing apparatus 200 is proportional to a frequency range of a signal which is used for data transmission. Here, the frequency range of the signal used for data transmission is referred to as a bandwidth of a communication channel.”; see para. 0127 – “The ultrasound probe 100 may predetermine and store at least one parameter value associated with ultrasound image quality and a transmission speed of a frame constituting an ultrasound image, based on the bandwidth of the communication channel. The ultrasound probe 100 may map an experimentally optimized parameter value and a transmission speed of a frame to each of a plurality of bandwidths…”).
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 tuning sampling parameters, as disclosed in Barnes, by tuning one or more sampling parameters to minimize a data transmission rate and to maximize an image quality, as disclosed in Cho. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to adaptively transmit ultrasound image data based on a state of the communication channel, as taught in Cho (see para. 0008).
Claims 6-8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Hirota et al. (US 20140350402 A1, published November 27, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Hirota.
Regarding claim 6, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 4 above.
Barnes teaches defining a signal threshold, but does not explicitly teach where the defined threshold is encoded at a lower bit depth than a full sampling bit depth.
Whereas, Hirota, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the defined threshold is a digitized voltage encoded at a lower bit depth than a full sampling bit depth (see para. 0094 – “…in a case where the photoacoustic data before the logarithmic conversion is resulted from sampling at a sampling frequency of 40 MHz and a quantization bit rate of 12 bits, and the digital photoacoustic data [digitized voltage encoded] after the logarithmic conversion has values ranging from 1 to 11 [full sampling bit depth], for example, the threshold value is set to around “4” [defined threshold].”).
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 a signal threshold, as disclosed in Barnes, by having the defined threshold encoded at a lower bit depth than a full sampling bit depth, as disclosed in Hirota. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reliably remove noise components in the low luminance range, as taught in Hirota (see para. 0094).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Hirota further teaches wherein the defined threshold is a change in output voltage by a defined parameter relative to a previous output voltage (see para. 0094 – “…in a case where the photoacoustic data before the logarithmic conversion is resulted from sampling at a sampling frequency of 40 MHz and a quantization bit rate of 12 bits, and the digital photoacoustic data [digitized voltage encoded] after the logarithmic conversion has values ranging from 1 to 11, for example, the threshold value is set to around “4” [defined threshold].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Hirota further teaches wherein image sampling by the imaging device is triggered at a full sampling rate for a set time for each occurrence of an event associated with the output voltage changing by the defined parameter relative to the previous output voltage (see para. 0067 – “Further, the control means 31 outputs to the AD conversion means 22 a sampling trigger signal that instructs to start sampling…In response to the sampling trigger signal, the AD conversion means 22 starts sampling of the photoacoustic wave detection signals outputted from the probe 11 and received by the receiver circuit 21.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Hirota further teaches wherein the defined threshold is one or more logarithmically spaced voltage levels (see para. 0094 – “…in a case where the photoacoustic data before the logarithmic conversion is resulted from sampling at a sampling frequency of 40 MHz and a quantization bit rate of 12 bits, and the digital photoacoustic data [digitized voltage encoded] after the logarithmic conversion has values ranging from 1 to 11, for example, the threshold value is set to around “4” [defined threshold].”).
The motivation for claims 7-8 and 10 was shown previously in claim 6.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Corl (US 20130303907 A1, published November 14, 2013), hereinafter referred to as Corl.
Regarding claim 11, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above, and
Barnes further teaches wherein the defined threshold is a change in an amplitude signal by a set parameter in a previously stored threshold amplitude signal (see col. 3, lines 31-36 – “The system initially processes data at the first sampling rate while monitoring the velocity signal [amplitude]. Upon the occurrence of systolic velocities in excess of the high threshold value [defined threshold] for the first range, the system automatically adjusts the sampling rate to the second rate for further processing.”).
Barnes inherent teaches a carrier wave having an amplitude and a phase, but does not explicitly teach only amplitude and phase of a carrier wave are sampled with the phase sampled concurrently with the amplitude and encoded at a lower bit rate than 16 bits.
Whereas, Corl, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein only amplitude and phase of a carrier wave are sampled with the phase sampled concurrently with the amplitude and encoded at a lower bit rate than 16 bits (Fig. 8, scale (amplitude) analyzer 350 and velocity computer 360 (phase) sampling I and Q signals concurrently; see para. 0083 "A block priority encoder 353 or 354 converts an I/Q sample pair into a floating point format, using a shared exponent for both samples In this illustrative example, the 12- or 14-bit I and Q samples (11 or 13 bits plus sign) are converted to floating point representations see para. 0089 "A block priority encoder 361 converts an I/Q sample pair into a floating point format, using a shared exponent for both samples In this illustrative example, the 12-bit I and Q samples (11-bits plus sign) are converted to floating point representations ").
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 a carrier wave having an amplitude and a phase, as disclosed in Barnes, by having only amplitude and phase of a carrier wave are sampled with the phase sampled concurrently with the amplitude and encoded at a lower bit rate than 16 bits, as disclosed in Corl. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the same multiple acquisitions to improve the signal-to-noise ratio and dynamic range available for the grey-scale display, as taught in Corl (see para. 0079).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Corl further teaches wherein the amplitude and the phase of the carrier wave are extracted via I/Q demodulation (Fig. 7 and 8, scale (amplitude) analyzer 350 extracts amplitude and velocity computer 360 extracts phase via I/Q demodulation; see para. 0064 "The demodulator/digitizer 330 transforms the amplified echo signal from the amplifier 250 into a baseband representation of the signal comprising digitized samples of the I and Q components of the complex modulation waveform.").
The motivation for claim 12 was shown previously in claim 11.
Claims 14 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Hancock (US 20140056099 A1, published February 27, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Hancock.
Regarding claim 14, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 13 above.
Barnes teaches a transducer, but does not explicitly teach the transducer is a MEMS-based micromachined ultrasonic transducer.
Whereas, Hancock, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the transducer comprises a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS)-based micromachined ultrasonic transducer configured as a two-dimensional (2D) array structure (see para. 0063 – “In some embodiments of the present disclosure, the IVUS imaging system 100 is a piezoelectric micromachine ultrasound transducer (PMUT) solid-state IVUS imaging system. In some embodiments, the IVUS imaging system 100 is a CMUT or PZT solid-state IVUS imaging system.”; see para. 0069 – “The transducer complex 110 houses an array of transducers 302, thirteen of which are illustrated in FIG. 3.” Where 2D MEMS arrays (i.e., PMUT and CMUT) are known in the art).
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 a transducer, as disclosd in Barnes, by having the transducer as a MEMS-based micromachined ultrasonic transducer, as disclosed in Hancock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve resolution to facilitate better diagnostic accuracy, enhances the ability to discern different tissue types, and enhances the ability to accurately ascertain the borders of the vessel lumen, as taught in Hancock (see para. 0067).
Furthermore, regarding claim 22, Hancock further teaches wherein the processor is embedded as part of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (see para. 0137 – “For example, in various embodiments, an aperture engine 1300, multiple aperture engines 1300, and/or an entire focusing system 2100 is implemented on a single discrete computing hardware device such as a general purpose processor, a graphic processing unit, an ASIC, an FPGA, a DSP, a microcontroller, or other suitable computing device.”).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve efficiency in the data pipeline, reducing the dataset may also reduce the size and complexity of functional circuitry, providing additional size, power, and cost savings, as taught in Hancock (see para. 0177).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Konofagou et al. (US 20140135625 A1, published May 15, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Konofagou.
Regarding claim 16, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 15 above.
Barnes teaches imaging elements transmitting and receiving ultrasound waves, but does not explicitly teach where the ultrasound waves are plane/diverging waves.
Whereas Konofagou, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the wave data comprises at least one of plane wave data and diverging wave data associated with one or more wave transmit-receive cycles carried out by the imaging elements (see para. 0092 – “Flash or plane wave mode (FIG. 6A) consists of sending non focused transmit waves 201. In this case, all the elements of the probe fire at the same time resulting in a wavefront parallel to the probe. An image is created from a single transmit event…” where plane/diverging waves are known in the art).
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 imaging elements transmitting and receiving ultrasound waves, as disclosed in Barnes, by having the ultrasound waves as plane/diverging waves, as disclosed in Konofagou. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to create an image sequence for motion estimation, as taught in Konofagou (see para. 0092).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Konofagou, as applied to claim 16 above, and in further view of Wang (US 20180064396 A1, published March 8, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Wang.
Regarding claim 17, Barnes in view of Konofagou teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 16 above.
Barnes in view of Konofagou teaches generating image data, but does not explicitly teach generating full circumferential 3D image data.
Whereas, Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the wave data is full circumferential, three-dimensional (3D) image data (see para. 0066 – “The imaging window may be, for example, a cylindrical polymer extrusion suitable for use in the coronary vasculature, where the inner tube containing the imaging component at the distal end rotates and pulls back to create a 3-D image.”; see para. 0097 – “…if a full revolution is reached, such as described for FIG. 14, a matrix is formed that contains the information obtained.”).
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 generating image data, as disclosed in Barnes in view of Konofagou, by generating full circumferential 3D image data, as disclosed in Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce a 3D reconstruction of the blood vessel for diagnosis of coronary artery disease, as taught in Wang (see para. 0068).
Furthermore, regarding claim 18, Wang further teaches wherein the imaging device comprises a catheter-based ultrasound imaging device configured to transmit ultrasound pulses to, and receive echoes of the ultrasound pulses from, intravascular and/or intracardiac tissue (see para. 0068 – “The imaging component is inside the catheter, where the imaging component can image in vivo via OCT, fluorescence, IVUS…The imaging catheter may be adapted for creating a cross-sectional image from an in vivo sample…When deployed in a blood vessel, the system can produce a 3-D reconstruction of the blood vessel…”).
The motivation for claim 18 was shown previously in claim 17.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Wang.
Regarding claim 19, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 13 above.
Barnes teaches an imaging device, but does not explicitly teach the imaging device is a minimally invasive implantable device.
Whereas, Wang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the imaging device is a minimally invasive implantable device (see para. 0068 – “The imaging component is inside the catheter, where the imaging component can image in vivo via OCT, fluorescence, IVUS…The imaging catheter may be adapted for creating a cross-sectional image from an in vivo sample…When deployed in a blood vessel, the system can produce a 3-D reconstruction of the blood vessel…” where a catheter is considered a “minimally invasive implantable device”).
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 an imaging device, as disclosed in Barnes, by having the imaging device as a minimally invasive implantable device, as disclosed in Wang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce a 3D reconstruction of the blood vessel for diagnosis of coronary artery disease, as taught in Wang (see para. 0068).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Wang, as applied to claim 19 above, and in further view of Hancock.
Regarding claim 20, Barnes in view of Wang teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 19 above.
Barnes in view of Wang teaches tuning the sampling rate, but does not explicitly teach tuning of the sampling rate reduces an overall power consumption and heat dissipation of the device.
Whereas, Hancock, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein tuning of the sampling rate reduces an overall power consumption and heat dissipation of the device (see para. 0172 – “The reduced sampling rate may accordingly reduce bus speed, data storage requirements, clock frequency, power consumption, and/or processing hardware required for other focusing steps.”).
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 tuning the sampling rate, as disclosed in Barnes in view of Wang, by tuning of the sampling rate reduces an overall power consumption and heat dissipation of the device, as disclosed in Hancock. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to exhibit improved durability and longevity of the device, as taught in Hancock (see para. 0024).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes in view of Le Duff (US 20230098406 A1, published March 30, 2023), hereinafter referred to as Duff.
Regarding claim 21, Barnes teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Barnes teaches tuning the sampling rate, but does not explicitly teach tuning of the sampling rate results in reduction of an average sampling rate of received data from the imaging device.
Whereas, Duff, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein tuning of the sampling rate results in reduction of an average sampling rate of received data from the imaging device (see para. 0026 – “…the probe may obtain samples at a specified time resolution, up to full time resolution, but providing a lower mean sampling rate.”).
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 tuning the sampling rate, as disclosed in Barnes, by tuning of the sampling rate results in reduction of an average sampling rate of received data from the imaging device, as disclosed in Duff. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the initial amount of data captured by the probe, allowing for lower density hardware (e.g., fewer analog-to-digital conversion channels or related analog front-end hardware) to be used at a lower data rate, as taught in Duff (see para. 0026).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Waters et al. (US 20140020445 A1, published January 23, 2014) discloses adjusting a sampling rate of a second MEMS sensor to the first sensor sampling rate value.
Haider et al. (US 20100152587 A1, published June 17, 2010) discloses enabling the sample rate of the ADC to be reduced, reducing the cost and complexity of the receive circuitry and the data acquisition circuitry.
Roth (US 5629865 A, published May 13, 1997) discloses both the time base and the time synthesizer are externally triggered by the pulser-receiver (a+2 volt synchronizing pulse). Triggering occurs on the positive slope of the pulse.
Suehira (US 20160150971 A1, published June 2, 2016) discloses each of the digital signals extracted at each measurement position is compared with a threshold value stored in a memory.
Lashgari et al. (US 20250141904 A1, published May 1, 2025 with a priority date of May 5, 2023) discloses reducing the sampling rate to a default level for events that meet or exceed the predefined threshold.
Chiao et al. (US 5568144 A, published October 22, 1996) discloses the reduction in quantization error in the small signal region depends on the threshold value and a greater reduction can be obtained by increasing the sampling rate and reducing the threshold value.
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
Prosecution Insights