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 .
Response to Amendment
Claim 2 is cancelled, and 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 Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/07/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For claim 1, the applicant argues “Taffler discloses only hardware-level, event-based quantization that are timestamped, binary up-down values (polarity transitions beyond a threshold) that exceed a threshold, and is thus entirely silent on adaptive sampling based on the clinical relevance of a structure to be imaged, as disclosed in amended claim 1.” (see pg. 6, para. 3 of applicant’s remarks), and the examiner disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “adaptive sampling based on signal analysis and clinically meaningful characteristics to minimize data transmission rate and maximize clinically relevant image quality” (see pg. 6, para. 2 of applicant’s remarks)) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
The limitations of claim 1 does not specify “clinical relevance” of a structure to be imaged or “characteristics” of received data. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Taffler teaches the limitation “wherein the defined threshold is determined based, at least in part, on a clinical relevance of a structure to be imaged and/or one or more characteristics of the received data” (see 102(a) rejection below).
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, 3-9, and 13-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Taffler et al. (US 20220354460 A1, published November 10, 2022), hereinafter referred to as Taffler.
Regarding claim 1, Taffler 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 from an imaging device and run an event-driven sampling algorithm (see para. 0060 - "The disclosed subject matter also may be implemented in the form of a computer program product having computer program code containing instructions implemented in non-transitory and/or tangible media wherein, when the computer program code is loaded into and executed by a computer, the computer becomes an apparatus for practicing implementations of the disclosed subject matter.") causing the processor to:
analyze the received data to identify one or more characteristics associated with the received data (see para. 0020 - "The changes in the up-down value [characteristic] for a transducer element may be changes between +ve or -ve, Changes in the up-down value for a transducer element, representing changes in the electrical signal being output to the quantizer by the transducer element, may be subject to a threshold value in either direction.") and
further detect the occurrence of one or more events, 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 para. 0020 - "Changes in the up-down value [occurrence of event] for a transducer element, representing changes in the electrical signal being output to the quantizer by the transducer element, may be subject to a threshold value in either direction."; Fig. 1; see para. 0031 - "The time delay component 120 takes a clock signal from the edge detection component 130, which may detect when there is an edge-up or edge-down in the output of the operational amplifier/comparator."),
wherein the defined threshold is determined based, at least in part, on a clinical relevance of a structure to be imaged and/or one or more characteristics of the received data (see para. 0018 – “An event-based ultrasound system may allow for only relevant data from the transducer elements of an ultrasound system to be captured and recorded.” Where it is inherent and known in the art to threshold received data to generate a quality image, and to determine a threshold based on the type of structure to be imaged); and
tune a sampling rate of the imaging device based on a detected occurrence of the one or more events (see para. 0018 - "In addition, an event based ultrasound system may enable the production of high quality imaging systems that have small form factors, reduced weight, and lengthened battery life due to the simplified demands of analog to digital conversion and bandwidth requirements, potentially allowing for wireless transmission of data from the transducer elements."; see para. 0027 - "The data from the transducer elements may be aggregated and sorted into a deep time ordered matrix of the data points. Once this is assembled, post processing may be used to reconstruct the waveforms at a target quantization level and sampling frequency [tuning sampling rate].").
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Taffler further teaches wherein the received data comprises analog voltage signals (Fig. 1; see para. 0031 - "The event-detection circuit 100 may be connected to a transducer element and may receive an electrical signal output by the transducer element as input voltage Vᵢₙ to the non-inverting input of an operational amplifier/comparator 110." Analog receive signals are known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Taffler further teaches wherein the received data comprises digitized voltage signals (Fig. 1; see para. 0001 - "Sampling of an analog waveform to generate a digital representation of the waveform may be referred to as digitization or quantization."; see para. 0031 - "The event-detection circuit 100 may be connected to a transducer element and may receive an electrical signal output by the transducer element as input voltage Vin to the non-inverting input of an operational amplifier/comparator 110." digitizing receive signals are known in the art as A/D (analog-to-digital) converters).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Taffler further teaches wherein the processor is configured to: access raw digitized voltage signals; 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. 0018 - "In addition, an event based ultrasound system may enable the production of high quality imaging systems [maximum image quality] that have small form factors, reduced weight, and lengthened battery life due to the simplified demands of analog to digital conversion and bandwidth requirements, potentially allowing for wireless transmission of data [minimum data transmission rate] from the transducer elements.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Taffler further teaches wherein the defined threshold is a digitized voltage encoded at a lower bit depth than a full sampling bit depth (see para. 0020 - "The changes in the up-down value for a transducer element may be changes between +ve or -ve, Changes in the up-down value for a transducer element, representing changes in the electrical signal being output to the quantizer [bit depth] by the transducer element, may be subject to a threshold value in either direction. The threshold value may be dynamic and may be considered a memory for the last "value" or "values" of intensity at the transducer element.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Taffler further teaches wherein the defined threshold is a change in output voltage by a defined parameter relative to a previous output voltage (see para. 0020 - "Changes in the up-down value for a transducer element, representing changes in the electrical signal being output to the quantizer by the transducer element, may be subject to a threshold value in either direction.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Taffler 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 the output voltage changing by the defined parameter relative to the previous output voltage (Fig. 4; see para. 0020 - "The changes in the up-down value for a transducer element may be changes between +ve or -ve, Changes in the up-down value for a transducer element, representing changes in the electrical signal being output to the quantizer by the transducer element, may be subject to a threshold value in either direction. The threshold value may be dynamic and may be considered a memory for the last "value" or "values" of intensity at the transducer element.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Taffler 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 (Fig. 4; see para. 0020 - "The changes in the up-down value for a transducer element may be changes between +ve or -ve, Changes in the up-down value for a transducer element, representing changes in the electrical signal being output to the quantizer by the transducer element, may be subject to a threshold value in either direction. The threshold value may be dynamic and may be considered a memory for the last "value" or "values" of intensity at the transducer element.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Taffler further teaches wherein the imaging device comprises a transducer comprising an array of individual imaging elements (Fig. 2, transducer array 208).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Taffler further teaches wherein the transducer comprises a micro-electromechanical systems (MEMS)-based micromachined ultrasonic transducer configured as a two-dimensional (2D) arrays tructure (Fig. 2, transducer array 208, where 2D MEMS arrays are known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, Taffler 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 (Fig. 1-2; see para. 0033 - "The transducer array 208 may be able to generate pulses of ultrasonic waves and then detect echoes of the ultrasonic waves 120 as they are reflected.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, Taffler further 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 (Fig. 1-2; see para. 0033 - "The transducer array 208 may be able to generate pulses of ultrasonic waves and then detect echoes of the ultrasonic waves 120 as they are reflected." Where plane wave data and diverging wave data is known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 17, Taffler further teaches wherein the wave data is full circumferential, three-dimensional (3D) image data (see para. 0002 - "When imaging takes place within the body of the patient, such as via catheters or endoscopes, the number and quality of connections in the cable may be limited by both size and curvature of artery, vein, or other channel in the body." ultrasound imaging via catheters or endoscopes for full circumferential three-dimensional imaging is known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 18, Taffler 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. 0002 - "When imaging takes place within the body of the patient, such as via catheters or endoscopes, the number and quality of connections in the cable may be limited by both size and curvature of artery, vein, or other channel in the body." ultrasound imaging via catheters or endoscopes for intravascular or intracardiac imaging is known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 19, Taffler further teaches wherein the imaging device is a minimally invasive implantable device (see para. 0002 - "When imaging takes place within the body of the patient, such as via catheters or endoscopes, the number and quality of connections in the cable may be limited by both size and curvature of artery, vein, or other channel in the body." Ultrasound imaging via catheters or endoscope is considered minimally invasive implantable).
Furthermore, regarding claim 20, Taffler further teaches wherein tuning of the sampling rate reduces an overall power consumption and heat dissipation of the device (see para. 0030 - "An eventbased ultrasound system may allow transducer and system designers wider latitude in creating ultrasound system. Receive beamforming on high element count matrix transducers may allow for the avoidance of the need for microbeamforming, cable thickness may be reduced for the same number of elements in a transducer array, or the number of transducer elements per transducer array for a given cable size may be increased while still reducing data transmission, storage, and computational needs, and lowering thermal/power requirements in the handle.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 21, Taffler further teaches wherein tuning of the sampling rate results in reduction of an average sampling rate of received data from the imaging device (see para. 0030 - "An event-based ultrasound system may allow transducer and system designers wider latitude in creating ultrasound system. Receive beamforming on high element count matrix transducers may allow for the avoidance of the need for microbeamforming, cable thickness may be reduced for the same number of elements in a transducer array, or the number of transducer elements per transducer array for a given cable size may be increased while still reducing data transmission, storage, and computational needs, and lowering thermal/power requirements in the handle.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 22, Taffler further teaches wherein the processor is embedded as part of an application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) (see para. 0061 - "Implementations may use hardware that includes a processor, such as a general-purpose microprocessor and/or an Application Specific Integrated Circuit (ASIC) that embodies all or part of the techniques according to embodiments of the disclosed subject matter in hardware and/or firmware.").
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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taffler in view of Matzuk (US 3964296 A, published June 22, 1976), hereinafter referred to as Matzuk.
Regarding claim 10, Taffler teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 4 above.
Taffler teaches a defined voltage threshold, but does not explicitly teach where the defined threshold is one or more logarithmically spaced voltage levels.
Whereas, Matzuk, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the defined threshold is one or more logarithmically spaced voltage levels (Fig. 20; see col. 21, lines 21-25 - "The signal from the contour identification plate [292] is sent to second logarithmic receiver 362 and the receiver output drives video amplifier 364 which in turn compares the amplified voltage against a reference voltage 366 in threshold detector 370.").
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 defined voltage threshold, as disclosed in Taffler, by having the defined threshold as one or more logarithmically spaced voltage levels, as disclosed in Matzuk. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to positively identify the reception of the reference beam by the contour identification plate and is used to create a direct current voltage whose value depends upon the physical contour of scanner, as taught in Matzuk (see col. 21, lines 25-30).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taffler in view of Corl (US 20130303907 A1, published November 14, 2013), hereinafter referred to as Corl.
Regarding claim 11, Taffler teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above, and
Taffler 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 para. 0033 - "When a transducer element of the transducer array 208 receives an echo of a pulse, the transducer element may generate a voltage with an amplitude and frequency that corresponds to the received echo and may be output as an electrical signal from the transducer element to an event-detection circuit such as the event-detection circuit 100.").
Taffler inherently teaches the carrier wave having an amplitude and a phase, but does not explicitly teach where 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 the carrier wave having an amplitude and a phase, as disclosed in Taffler, by having only the amplitude and phase of a carrier wave 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Barnes et al. (US 4509526 A, published April 9, 1985) discloses 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.
Stevens et al. (US 4858614 A, published August 22, 1989) discloses systolic velocities lower than the low threshold cause a downward adjustment to the first sampling rate, while velocities in excess of the high threshold for the second range adjust the sampling rate to the third range.
Huntsman et al. (US 4796634 A, published January 10, 1989) discloses he signal sampling rate is adjusted to that one of the sampling rates corresponding to the systolic velocity.
Pitsillides (US 20080312534 A1, published December 18, 2008) discloses the system uses the information obtained by the Doppler decoder to adjust the PRF sampling rate at 3 flow velocity threshold levels (L1, L2 and L3), and when these levels are crossed, the microcontroller adjusts the PRF sampling rate to be either higher or lower.
Venkatraman et al. (US 20140316305 A1, published October 23, 2014) discloses a biometric monitoring device may adjust and/or reduce the sampling rate of optical heart rate sampling when motion detector circuitry detects or determines that the biometric monitoring device wearer's motion is below a threshold.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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.
/Nyrobi Celestine/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798