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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 31 Mar 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, pg. 6-9, filed 31 Mar 2026 with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been considered but are not persuasive in part.
Regarding independent claim 6 and its dependent claims 7, 9-12, and 14, Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 6-8, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Regarding dependent claim 8, Applicant’s arguments, pg. 7, have been considered and are persuasive. See the Allowable Subject Matter below.
Regarding independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16-19 as well as independent claim 20 and its dependent claims 21-24, Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8-9, have been considered and are persuasive. See the Allowable Subject Matter below.
Status of Claims
Claims 6-12 and 14-25 are currently under examination. Claim 13 has been cancelled, and claim 25 has been newly added since the Final Office Action of 15 Jan 2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6-7, 9-12, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 6 recites “A cross-ray ultrasound tomography system, comprising: an ultrasonic emitter configured to … ; and a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array configured to …” A review of the original specification of the instant application discloses that the claimed invention is directed to an ultrasound imaging system (see at least [0024]: “high-resolution large-field ultrasound imaging”). However, claim 6 merely recites a system comprising an ultrasonic emitter and detector array and does not require generation of an ultrasound image. Therefore, the claimed invention is broader than the narrower scope of the written description of the instant application. See MPEP 2163.II.A.2. Furthermore, the instant application is a continuation application to parent application 17/248,048 (now US Patent No. 12053325), and the originally presented claims of 06 Jan 2021 in the parent application explicitly recited constructing a tomographic image by a computing device (see specifically independent claim 1 directed to “A cross-ray ultrasound tomography system, comprising: an ultrasonic emitter …; an ultrasonic detector array …; and a computing device configured to: … construct one or more tomographic images…”). Exclusion of a computing device configured to generate a tomographic image in the system claim 6 of the instant continuation application fails to comply with the original claims of the parent application for the benefit of earlier priority date. See MPEP 2163.II.3(b): “Akeva LLC v. Nike, Inc., 817 Fed. Appx. 1005, 1012-13, 2020 USPQ2d 10797 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (The court found that the continuation patents were not entitled to the benefit of an earlier filing date because the continuation patents removed a disclaimer that the invention did not cover shoes with conventional fixed rear soles that was present in the earlier filed patents) … if an element which applicant describes as essential or critical is not claimed, a new or amended claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as lacking adequate written description, or in the case of a priority or benefit claim under 35 U.S.C. 119, 120, 365, or 386, the priority or benefit claim must be denied.” Claims 7, 9-12, 14, and 25 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 6 as these dependent claims also do not explicitly require previously presented computing device configured to generate a tomographic image based on the detected ultrasonic waves. Examiner notes that dependent claim 8 is not subject to this lack of original written description rejection, as it explicitly requires a computing device configured to constructing one or more tomographic images based on the detected ultrasonic waves by the ultrasonic detector array.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 9-12, 14, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites “A cross-ray ultrasound tomography system, comprising: an ultrasonic emitter configured to … ; and a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array configured to …” The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear in view of the claimed system being directed to a “tomography” system when only ultrasonic emitter and detector array are claimed. In particular, it is unclear whether the claimed system includes a non-tomography system, such an industrial ultrasound system comprising the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array configured to function as recited in the body of claim 6. Claims 7, 9-12, 14, and 25 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 6. Examiner notes that dependent claim 8 is not subject to this indefinitess rejection, as it explicitly recites, not merely reciting an intended use for, constructing one or more tomographic images. For the purposes of the examination and a compact prosecution, claims 6-7, 9-12, 14, and 25 are being given a broadest reasonable interpretation to be an ultrasound tomography system configured to generate a tomographic image.
Claim 25 recites the limitation “wherein the non-parallel angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees or greater than 180 degrees and less than 360 degrees”. The antecedent basis for “the non-parallel angel” is unclear. In particular, claim 6, to which claim 25 depends, recites “a direction at an angle to the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane”. Thus, claim 6 recites either a non-parallel direction or an angle, not a non-parallel angle. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the non-parallel direction is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees or greater than 180 degrees and less than 360 degrees”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 6, 9, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Matsuda (US PG Pub No. 2017/0055950, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 15 Aug 2024).
Regarding claim 6, Matsuda discloses an ultrasound tomography system (at least Fig. 1) comprising:
an ultrasonic emitter (Fig. 7: transmitting elements 51) configured to emit one or more ultrasonic waves (Fig. 7 and [0075]-[0076]: transmitting elements 51 for transmitting the ultrasonic wave (fundamental wave)); and
a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array (Fig. 7: receiving elements 52; [0026]: receiving elements arranged in a two-dimensional array) configured to generate one or more radio frequency signals in response to detecting ultrasonic waves (Fig. 7 and [0075]-[0077]: receiving elements 52 receive a high-order harmonic wave with respect to the fundamental wave transmitted by the transmitting elements 51; Fig. 2 and [0093]: reception circuit 63 receives a reception signal from receiver elements 52 of ultrasonic sensor 22);
wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of a plane at elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array (Fig. 2: transmitting elements 51 and receiving elements 52 are arranged in a single line, where the receiving elements 52 are not facing the transmitting elements 51) and
the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array are configured such that the one or more ultrasonic waves are emitted by the ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane (Fig. 7: transmitting elements 51 transmit ultrasonic waves towards object X away from the plane of receiving elements 52, where the face of receiving elements 52 and the transmitted ultrasonic waves form less than or equal to 90 deg angle; [0086]).
Regarding claim 9, Matsuda discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Matsuda further discloses:
wherein the angle is (i) in a range from about 60 degrees to about 120 degrees, (ii) in a range from about 70 degrees to about 110 degrees, (iii) in a range from about 80 degrees to about 100 degrees, or (iv) about 90 degrees (Fig. 7: transmitting elements 51 transmit ultrasonic waves towards object X away from the plane of receiving elements 52, where the face of receiving elements 52 and the transmitted ultrasonic waves form less than or equal to 90 deg angle; [0086]).
Regarding claim 25, Matsuda discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Matsuda further discloses:
wherein the non-parallel angle is greater than 0 degrees and less than 180 degrees or greater than 180 degrees and less than 360 degrees (Fig. 7: transmitting elements 51 and receiving elements 52 are arranged in a single line, where the face of receiving elements 52 and the ultrasonic waves transmitted from the transmitting elements 51 form less than or equal to 90 deg angle; [0086]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Johnson et al. (US PG Pub No. 2006/0287596, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 15 Aug 2024) - hereinafter referred to as Johnson.
Regarding claim 7, Matsuda discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Matsuda further discloses:
a computing device (Fig. 2: control device 10; [0094]: control device 10 as a computer) configured to construct one or more tomographic images based on the detected ultrasonic waves ([0101]: signal processing section 143 of control device 10 performs processes for obtaining a good tomographic image on the reception signal on which the harmonic process has been performed).
Matsuda does not disclose:
the computing device configured to calculate a scattering coefficient at each of a plurality of spatial coordinates, wherein the scattering coefficient at each spatial coordinate is calculated using acoustic data, the acoustic data based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals generated by the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging, Johnson, however, teaches:
calculating a scattering coefficient at each of a plurality of spatial coordinates, wherein the scattering coefficient at each spatial coordinate is calculated using acoustic data based on the one or more radio frequency signals generated by a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array (Fig. 8 and [0474]-[0479]: steps 208-212: estimate scattering potential and scattered field; [0351]-[0369]: Example 7 including calculate scattering matrix relating incident field coefficients to scattering coefficients; [0437]-[0438]: two-dimensional array of receivers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuda’s ultrasound tomography to include Johnson’s method of calculating scattering coefficient based on the detected ultrasonic waves. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., calculating a scattering coefficient, as disclosed by Johnson), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Matsuda and Johnson are directed to ultrasound imaging. The motivation for the combination would have been since inverse scattering images allows “all orders of scattering tend to be used to enhance the images and do not contribute to artifacts or degrade the images” and improved spatial resolution ([0016] of Johnson).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Johnson, as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Clement (Clement. Portable Ultrasound Imaging of the Brain for Use in Forward Battlefield Areas. U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command (2011). A copy provided by Applicant in the IDS of 15 Aug 2024).
Regarding claim 10, Matsuda in view of Johnson discloses all limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and Matsuda in view of Johnson does not disclose:
wherein the scattering coefficient is calculated at each spatial coordinate using the acoustic data from the one or more radio frequency signals and a relative position between each transducer in the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array and (i) a physical point source of one or more transducers of the ultrasonic emitter or (ii) a virtual point source at a focal point of the one or more transducers of the ultrasonic emitter.
In the same field of ultrasound imaging, Clement, however, teaches:
calculating a scattering coefficient at each spatial coordinate using acoustic data and a relative position between each transducer in a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array and a virtual point source at a focal point of the one or more transducers of an ultrasonic emitter (pg. 7-8: Selected Method of reconstruction: Equations 1-2 and “the backscattered pressure recorded over a line perpendicular to the z-axis, p(x; z0), the relation between the spatial Fourier transform of a received signal and the 2D Fourier transform of the object's scattering coefficient, a(r') … map coordinates of the object’s transform space, k' [Symbol font/0x3D] (k.x, k.z), to coordinates of the projection space, k = (k.x, [Symbol font/0x71]), comprised of the transform of the complex acoustic pressure measured along the spatial direction x at a constant value z.0 from the origin; pg. 6: Final Reconstruction method: source of origin of ultrasound transmission propagated to a virtual source, positioned at an arbitrary distance from the ROI).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuda’s system to include Clement’s method of calculating scattering coefficient. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., calculating a scattering coefficient, as disclosed by Clement), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since Matsuda, Johnson, and Clement are all directed to ultrasound imaging. The motivation for the combination would have been “to effectively erase the contributions of phase distortion by the bone (in the region of interest for ultrasound tomography)”, as taught by Clement (pg. 6: Final Reconstruction method).
Regarding claim 11, Matsuda in view of Johnson and Clement discloses all limitations of claim 10, as discussed above, and Clement further teaches (also see claim 10 above):
wherein the focal point of the one or more transducers of the ultrasonic emitter is along the direction of wave propagation from the ultrasonic emitter (Fig. 5: focal point along straightforwardly positioned array).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda in view of Johnson and Clement, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Weng et al. (US PG Pub No. 2001/0031922, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 15 Aug 2024) - hereinafter referred to as Weng.
Regarding claim 12, Matsuda in view of Johnson and Clement discloses all limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and Matsuda does not disclose:
wherein the ultrasonic emitter is a concave single-element ultrasonic transducer or a convex single-element ultrasonic transducer.
Weng, however, discloses:
an ultrasonic emitter that is a concave single-element ultrasonic transducer (Fig. 13-16 and [0051]: concave single element ultrasound emitting element).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsuda’s system to include Weng’s concave single-element ultrasonic emitter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the elements, and the substitution would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Matsuda and Weng are directed to ultrasound imaging. The motivation for the combination would have been to “control a focus of the ultrasound beam that it emits and/or to steer the ultrasound beam in a desired direction”, as taught by Weng ([0051]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuda.
Regarding claim 14, Matsuda discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Matsuda discloses in a different embodiment:
wherein the one or more ultrasonic waves emitted by the ultrasonic emitter (Fig. 8: transmitting aperture 531 of ultrasonic element group 530) cross with one or more side-scattered signals emitted by a scattering object (Fig. 8 and [0087]: generation position Pn of the reflected wave varies in the direction along the normal line N of an ultrasonic wave transmitting/receiving surface of the ultrasonic element group 530, namely the depth direction, the incident angle θ.n of the reflected wave to the receiving aperture 532 also varies (in FIG. 8, the three generation positions Pn (n=1, 2, 3) are illustrated), thus scattered signal from positions Pn detected by ultrasonic element group 530 comprising receiving aperture 532), wherein the one or more side-scattered signals are detected by the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array ([0026]: receiving elements arranged in a two-dimensional array).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine different embodiments of Matsuda to arrive at the claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements by a known method (i.e., varying the position of object for detection, as disclosed by Matsuda), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since Matsuda discloses different methods of detecting reflected ultrasonic waves. The motivation for the combination would have been to account for “when the generation position Pn of the reflected wave varies in the direction along the normal line N of an ultrasonic wave transmitting/receiving surface of the ultrasonic element group”, as taught by Matsuda ([0087]), in detecting reflected ultrasonic waves.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 15-24 are allowable.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
When claim 8 is considered as a whole, prior arts do not disclose, neither individually nor in combination, a cross-ray ultrasound tomography system comprising an ultrasonic emitter configured to emit one or more ultrasonic waves; and a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array configured to generate one or more radio frequency signals in response to detecting ultrasonic waves; wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of a plane at elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array and the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array are configured such that the one or more ultrasonic waves are emitted by the ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane; and a computing device configured to calculate a scattering coefficient at each of a plurality of spatial coordinates, wherein the scattering coefficient at each spatial coordinate is calculated using acoustic data, the acoustic data based at least in part on the one or more radio frequency signals generated by the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the computing device is further configured to construct one or more tomographic images from the scattering coefficients calculated at the plurality of spatial coordinates. In particular, Matsuda, a prior art made of record above, discloses constructing a tomographic image from reflected ultrasonic waves that are detected by a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of a plane at elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array and the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array are configured such that the one or more ultrasonic waves are emitted by the ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1 above). However, Matsuda does not disclose constructing the tomographic image from calculated scattering coefficients, as recited in claim 8 as a whole. Furthermore, while Johnson, another prior art made of record above, discloses calculating a scattering coefficient at a spatial coordinate (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 7 above), it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Matsuda and Johnson would result in constructing an ultrasound tomographic image from the scattering coefficients by the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector arranged as recited in claim 8 as a whole.
When claims 15-19 are considered as a whole, prior arts do not disclose, neither individually nor in combination, at least emitting an ultrasonic wave by an ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to a plane at elements of a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane, and wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array; and forming one or more tomographic images at least in part by calculating a scattering coefficient at each of a plurality of spatial coordinates using acoustic data, the acoustic data based at least in part on one or more radio frequency signals generated by the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array. In particular, Matsuda, a prior art made of record above, discloses constructing a tomographic image from reflected ultrasonic waves that are detected by a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of a plane at elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array and the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array are configured such that the one or more ultrasonic waves are emitted by the ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1 above). However, Matsuda does not disclose constructing the tomographic image from calculated scattering coefficients. Furthermore, while Johnson, another prior art made of record above, discloses calculating a scattering coefficient at a spatial coordinate (see the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 7 above), it would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the combination of Matsuda and Johnson would result in constructing an ultrasound tomographic image from the scattering coefficients by the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector arranged as recited the claim.
When claims 20-24 are considered as a whole, prior arts do not disclose, neither individually nor in combination, at least quantifying a flow velocity by emitting an ultrasonic wave by an ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to a plane at elements of a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane, and wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array; and forming a plurality of tomographic images based at least in part one or more radio frequency signals generated by the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array; clutter filtering the plurality of tomographic images; calculating amplitude and temporal frequency at each of a plurality of pixels of each frame in the clutter filtered plurality of tomographic images; and calculating a flow velocity vector at each of the plurality of pixels based at least in part on the amplitude and the temporal frequency calculated at each pixel of each frame in the clutter filtered plurality of tomographic images. In particular, Matsuda, a prior art made of record above, discloses constructing a tomographic image from reflected ultrasonic waves that are detected by a two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the ultrasonic emitter is outside of a plane at elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array and the ultrasonic emitter and the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array are configured such that the one or more ultrasonic waves are emitted by the ultrasonic emitter in a direction at an angle to the plane at the elements of the two-dimensional ultrasonic detector array, wherein the direction is not parallel to the plane (see the 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection to claim 1 above). However, Matsuda does not disclose clutter filtering the plurality of tomographic images; calculating amplitude and temporal frequency at each of a plurality of pixels of each frame in the clutter filtered plurality of tomographic images; and calculating a flow velocity vector at each of the plurality of pixels based at least in part on the amplitude and the temporal frequency calculated at each pixel of each frame in the clutter filtered plurality of tomographic images. Flynn et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0156704), a prior art made of record herein and provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 15 Aug 2024, discloses calculating flow velocity vector based on Doppler frequency shift based on pixels of clutter-filtered ultrasound images ([0060]-[0072]). However, the combination of Matsuda and Flynn et al. would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed invention of at least claim 20.
The technical advantage of the claimed inventions is to overcome “conventional ultrasound is too slow to acquire large-field images of centimeters scale at a kHz frame rate, which is critical for measuring blood dynamics. Consequently, imaging blood dynamics by conventional ultrasound requires dividing the imaging field into smaller sub-regions. Additionally, conventional ultrasound is limited to the estimation of the flow velocity component along the beam axis. In contrast, plane-wave-based ultrafast ultrasound imaging allows for large-field imaging using only a few tilted planar excitations” ([0003]-[0004] of the specification of the instant application).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
4/6/26