DETAILED ACTION
This office action replaces and supersedes the prior action, filed 05/15/2026.
This office action is in response to the communication received on 10/02/2025 concerning application no. 18/787,146 filed on 07/29/2024.
Claims 1-7 and 9 are pending.
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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“control logic” in claims 1-4: Paragraph 0022 discloses “In one embodiment, the control logic 105 is implemented using the Aritx UltraScale+ Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA) from Advanced Micro Devices (AMD)”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claims 1 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0255451) in view of Maurice et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0138414).
Regarding claim 1, Cohen teaches an ultrasound imaging system, comprising:
a personal computer (Abstract teaches the system with a base unit, processor, probe, and pulser/receiver modules. See Fig. 1-3);
a transducer (Abstract teaches the system with a base unit, processor, probe, and pulser/receiver modules. See Fig. 1-3);
an ultrasound receiver (Abstract teaches the system with a base unit, processor, probe, and pulser/receiver modules. See Fig. 1-3);
an ultrasound transmitter (Abstract teaches the system with a base unit, processor, probe, and pulser/receiver modules. See Fig. 1-3);
a control logic that controls the ultrasound transmitter to generate excitation signals for exciting elements of the transducer to generate ultrasound pulses, controls the ultrasound receiver to sample echoes of ultrasound pulses from the elements of the transducer, and streams data of the echoes to the personal computer (Paragraph 0004 teaches in one embodiment, a wireless interface is included in the ultrasound probe for enabling the digital signal to be wirelessly transmitted from the probe to the image processor of the base unit, which also includes a compatible wireless interface. A processor in the base unit processes the data produces an ultrasonic image. Paragraph 0020 teaches the base unit 12 further includes a display 18. Image data processed by the processor 16 of the base unit 12 are represented as an image on the display 18. The image is continually refreshed during operation of the system 10. Note that, for clarity, only selected features of the base unit 12, probe 14, and the system 10 are described herein in detail. Indeed, it is appreciated that the system 10 and its individual components can include additional features and components, though not disclosed herein, while still preserving the principles of the present invention. Note also that the base unit 12 can be one of any number devices, including a dedicated ultrasound device, a desktop or laptop computer, etc. Paragraph 0029 teaches an analog multiplexer 54 is operably connected to the pulser/receiver modules 52 and is configured to multiplex multiple electrical pulses representing the received echo pulses forwarded by the pulser/receiver modules. The multiplexer 54 in the present embodiment is a composite configuration of eight “1-of-8” multiplexers, each of which is operably connected to a corresponding plurality of eight pulser/receiver modules 52 (see FIGS. 4A, 4B). The composite multiplexer 54 is operably connected to a field-programmable gate array (or “FPGA,” described below at 60) having 3 binary-decoded select lines and 8 enable lines to the eight multiplexers to enable the signals from one multiplexer at a time to be forwarded along the signal line 66. Of course, other multiplexer configurations, including a different number of individual multiplexers included in the composite multiplexer, can be employed).
While Cohen teaches multiplexing, Cohen is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, comprising:
an analog multiplexer that multiplexes signals from the ultrasound transmitter to the transducer and from the transducer to the ultrasound receiver.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound probe design, Maurice teaches an ultrasound imaging system, comprising:
an analog multiplexer that multiplexes signals from the ultrasound transmitter to the transducer and from the transducer to the ultrasound receiver (Paragraph 0006 teaches the electronic circuitry of the digital acquisition board comprises at least an analog transmitter/receiver multiplexer connected to the transducers, an emission processing chain, and a reception processing chain comprising typically a plurality of variable gain amplifiers adapted to amplify the transducers signals, analog/digital converters adapted to convert amplified transducers signals into digital data, and a plurality of filters of variable gains and coefficients. Paragraph 0020 teaches the memories are distributed within the sequencer, the emission processing chain and the reception processing chain and are operated by corresponding FPGAs. See Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Cohen with Maurice’s teaching of an analog multiplexer for the transmission and reception with respect to the transducer. This modified apparatus would allow a user to improve the image quality and perform adaptive operation of the imaging device (Paragraph 0105 of Maurice). Furthermore, the modification addresses the issue of system cost and complexity and improves the ability to change parameters during real time operation (Paragraphs 0023-25 of Maurice).
Regarding claim 9, Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Cohen further teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the transducer, the ultrasound receiver, the ultrasound transmitter, the analog multiplexer, and the control logic are housed in a probe (Paragraph 00140 teaches FIG. 3 is a simplified block diagram of internal components of the ultrasound probe shown in FIG. 2).
Claims 2 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0255451) in view of Maurice et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0138414) further in view of Cacko et al. ("Shear Wave Elastography Implementation on a Portable Research Ultrasound System: Initial Results", 2022).
Regarding claim 2, Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Cohen and Maurice is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the control logic receives the data of the echoes from a plurality of channels, the control logic stores data of the echoes carried by a first set of channels of the plurality of channels in a first memory, and the control logic buffers data of the echoes carried by a second set of channels of the plurality of channels in a second memory.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging and probe design, Cacko teaches a an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the control logic receives the data of the echoes from a plurality of channels, the control logic stores data of the echoes carried by a first set of channels of the plurality of channels in a first memory, and the control logic buffers data of the echoes carried by a second set of channels of the plurality of channels in a second memory (Page 4 teaches that the system utilizes two front end modules that have individually controlled transmission and reception elements. In the reception, the FPGA captures the output data that is received and buffered in the off-chip DRAM. Fig. 2-3 shows communication with RAM).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Cohen and Maurice with Cacko’s teaching of the use of a plurality of channels that are operating in relation to the memory. This modified apparatus would allow the user to implement the SWE modality using a portable and cost-optimized system without significant image quality losses (Abstract of Cacko). Furthermore, the modification is a low-cost, portable and fully configurable research system (Conclusion of Cacko).
Regarding claim 5, modified Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 2, as discussed above.
Cohen further teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the control logic comprises a field programmable gate array (FPGA) (See Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 6, modified Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 5, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Cohen and Maurice is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the second memory is a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) that is external to FPGA.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging and probe design, Cacko teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the second memory is a dynamic random access memory (DRAM) that is external to FPGA (Page 4 teaches that the system utilizes two front end modules that have individually controlled transmission and reception elements. In the reception, the FPGA captures the output data that is received and buffered in the off-chip DRAM. Fig. 2-3 shows communication with RAM).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Cohen and Maurice with Cacko’s teaching of a DRAM that is external to the FPGA. This modified apparatus would allow the user to implement the SWE modality using a portable and cost-optimized system without significant image quality losses (Abstract of Cacko). Furthermore, the modification is a low-cost, portable and fully configurable research system (Conclusion of Cacko).
Claims 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0255451) in view of Maurice et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0138414) further in view of Cacko et al. ("Shear Wave Elastography Implementation on a Portable Research Ultrasound System: Initial Results", 2022) further in view of Solek et al. (US Patent No. 10,816,650).
Regarding claim 3, modified Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 2, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Cohen, Maurice, and Cacko is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the control logic streams the data of the echoes in the first memory to the personal computer and thereafter streams the data of the echoes in the second memory to the personal computer.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging and device design, Solek teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the control logic streams the data of the echoes in the first memory to the personal computer and thereafter streams the data of the echoes in the second memory to the personal computer (Col. 7, lines 16-32 teach that the delay modules are controlling the reception to be at differing times due to the buffers. See Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Cohen, Maurice, and Cacko with Solek’s teaching of the varying delay of the memory for data streams. This modified apparatus would allow the user to have improving focus, quality, and depth of the image without increasing the power consumption (Col. 2, lines 1-16 of Solek). Furthermore, the modification can achieve high image quality from a system have reduced power, size, cost and complexity (Abstract of Solek).
Claims 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0255451) in view of Maurice et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0138414) further in view of Cacko et al. ("Shear Wave Elastography Implementation on a Portable Research Ultrasound System: Initial Results", 2022) further in view of Holland et al. (US Patent No. 5,685,307).
Regarding claim 4, modified Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 3, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Cohen, Maurice, and Cacko is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the first memory comprises a data first in/first out (FIFO) memory, and the control logic further comprises a data multiplexer that multiplexes data from the second memory to the data FIFO memory.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging and device design, Holland teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the first memory comprises a data first in/first out (FIFO) memory, and the control logic further comprises a data multiplexer that multiplexes data from the second memory to the data FIFO memory (Col. 6, lines 61 to Col. 7, lines 39 teaches that the MUX allows for the multiplexing of the elements and the information is input into a FIFO memory. The ADC information is stored into the FIFO).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Cohen, Maurice, and Cacko with Holland’s teaching of multiplexing with FIFO memory. This modified apparatus would allow the user to acquire information that is portable, efficient, and accurate (Col. 2, lines 33-36). Furthermore, the modification improves characterization of animal tissue using ultrasound technology (Col. 2, lines 11-15).
Claims 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cohen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0255451) in view of Maurice et al. (PGPUB No. US 2020/0138414) further in view of Cacko et al. ("Shear Wave Elastography Implementation on a Portable Research Ultrasound System: Initial Results", 2022) further in view of Rothberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0032002).
Regarding claim 7, modified Cohen teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Cohen, Maurice, and Cacko is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the personal computer comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU), and runs an imaging module that generates an ultrasound image from the data of the echoes using the GPU.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging and device design, Rothberg teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the personal computer comprises a graphics processing unit (GPU), and runs an imaging module that generates an ultrasound image from the data of the echoes using the GPU (Paragraph 0125 teaches that the processing and generation of the ultrasound imagines is performed with a GPU).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Cohen, Maurice, and Cacko with Rothberg’s teaching of the use of a GPU for image generation. This modified method would allow the user to use a flexible and versatile probe (Paragraph 0222 of Rothberg). Furthermore, the modification allows for verification of operation of the ultrasound transducer probe to be relatively simple and accurate (Paragraph 0193 of Rothberg).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Maurice et al. (PGPUB No. US 2014/0347954): Teaches ultrasound probe design with an analog multiplexer.
Wegner (PGPUB No. US 2015/0080725): Teaches ultrasound probe design with an analog multiplexer.
Lei et al. (PGPUB No. US 2016/0134199): Teaches ultrasound probe design with an analog multiplexer.
LeBoeuf et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0146890): Teaches ultrasound probe design with an analog multiplexer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights