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 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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: limitation c) or claim 1 recites “calculating an estimate of a critical an imaging parameter, wherein the imaging parameter is” however this should be read as “calculating an estimate of a critical an imaging parameter, wherein the imaging parameter is at least one selected from the group consisting of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and further in view of Eldar (US 20250288276).
Regarding claim 1, Hennersperger discloses a method of ultrasound imaging (Abstract – “a method of ultrasound imaging”) comprising:
a) performing a pulse-echo acquisition to produce channel signals using ultrasound transducers, wherein the pulse-echo acquisition comprises transmitting ultrasound signals in a medium using transmit elements and receiving pulse-echo responses of the transmitted ultrasound signals using receive elements (Abstract – “A) transmitting an ultrasound beam from said ultrasound transducer into the object, by activating a first subset of said transducer elements, B) detecting reflected signals in a time resolved manner by means of a second subset of said transducer elements”);
b) processing the transmitted and received channel signals to produce a dataset of transmit and receive signal pairs of a set of transmit elements and a set of receive elements ([0003] – “signal processing for both transmission and reception of acoustic waves”, Abstract – “A) transmitting an ultrasound beam from said ultrasound transducer into the object, by activating a first subset of said transducer elements, B) detecting reflected signals in a time resolved manner by means of a second subset of said transducer elements”);
c) calculating an estimate of an imaging parameter, wherein the imaging parameter is a physical imaging model parameter selected from the group consisting of sound speed defined at various locations in the medium ([0085] – “the speed of sound deepformer may explicitly determine estimated speed of sound at each location within the tissue”), slowness defined at various locations in the medium, poses of the transmit elements and of the receive elements, transducer pose, attenuation, and deformation of an imaging target between pulse-echo acquisitions;
d) performing beamforming to generate an ultrasound image using the dataset and the estimate of the imaging parameter ([0035] – “the transmit beamforming model can implicitly learn from the two-dimensional ultrasound data or scan objects information related to the location dependent speed of sound and use this implicit knowledge in an optimum transmit beamforming leading to optimal image quality, in combination with the receive beamforming with which the transmit beamforming has been trained”);
e) calculating an image quality loss function from the generated ultrasound image, wherein the image quality loss function is minimized ([0103] – “The appearance of deepformed images is determined by an objective function minimized during training… the corresponding loss function can be formulated”) […];
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the image quality loss function is minimized with respect to the imaging parameter;
f) differentiating the calculated image quality loss function with respect to the imaging parameter by backpropagation;
g) updating the estimate of the imaging parameter based on the differentiated calculated image quality loss function;
h) repeating steps (d)-(g) until a convergence condition is satisfied;
i) generating an enhanced ultrasound image using the estimate of the imaging parameter after the convergence condition is satisfied.
However Eldar discloses wherein the image quality loss function is minimized with respect to the imaging parameter ([0052] – “properties adjuster 44 may comprise a non-linear gradient calculator 64 to minimize loss L and a parameter updater 66 to update property estimate θk to property estimate θk+1 based on the output of non-linear gradient calculator 64”, [0037] – “the elements of θ may be a discrete speed of sound C, a density Q, an attenuation D, and a nonlinearity B”);
f) differentiating the calculated image quality loss function with respect to the imaging parameter by backpropagation ([0054] – “non-linear gradient calculator 64 may be implemented via the backpropagation portion of a neural network system, which performs differentiation on the function implemented by the neural network”);
g) updating the estimate of the imaging parameter based on the differentiated calculated image quality loss function ([0010] – “The properties adjuster optimizes a loss function between the predicted transducer output and a measured transducer output and generates an improved set of the physical properties. The properties adjuster operates a backpropagator using the neural network representation of the wave function and activates the wave field modeler with the improved set of the physical properties”);
h) repeating steps (d)-(g) until a convergence condition is satisfied ([0039] – “Medium properties recoverer 46 may retrieve properties θ once properties adjuster 44 may indicate that estimate θk+1 may have converged or after a pre-defined, maximum number of iterations k”);
i) generating an enhanced ultrasound image using the estimate of the imaging parameter after the convergence condition is satisfied ([0039] – “Medium properties recoverer 46 may retrieve properties θ once properties adjuster 44 may indicate that estimate θk+1 may have converged or after a pre-defined, maximum number of iterations k”, [0061] – “An improved contrast and resolution of the reconstructed properties can be obtained”, [0062] – “In an exemplary implementation, the results of which are shown in FIGS. 6A-6L to which reference is now made, the properties of a 50 mm×50 mm simulated medium with similar characteristics to those of human tissues were reconstructed from ultrasound signals”).
Eldar is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a neural network to determine more accurate values for speed of sound through tissues.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the training steps for the neural network of Eldar to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because the steps are reiterated until the estimation for the speed of sound is satisfactory and therefore will provide an improved image.
Regarding claim 14, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Hennersperger further discloses wherein a pretrained neural network is used ([0029] – “said machine learning based receive beamforming model has been trained”, [0041] – “machine learning based receive beamforming model employs one of a deep convolutional neural network or a recurrent neural network”)
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein a […] neural network is used to produce an initial estimate of the imaging parameter and to update the estimate of the imaging parameter in at least one iteration.
However Eldar discloses wherein a […] neural network is used to produce an initial estimate of the imaging parameter and to update the estimate of the imaging parameter in at least one iteration (Abstract – “The wave field modeler is a neural network”, [0049] – “At each iteration, properties adjuster 44 may adjust parameter estimate θk using a loss function L”).
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the neural network to update the estimated parameter of Eldar to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the medium properties recoverer outputs a current improved set of the physical properties once the properties adjuster finishes operation (Eldar – Abstract).
Claims 2-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Frenz (US 20160317121).
Regarding claim 2, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the image quality loss function is a common midpoint phase error, coherence factor, common-midpoint coherence factor, phase error without common midpoint, image entropy or phase error of non-common midpoint sub-aperture pairs.
However Frenz discloses wherein the image quality loss function is a common midpoint phase error, coherence factor, common-midpoint coherence factor, phase error without common midpoint, image entropy or phase error of non-common midpoint sub-aperture pairs ([0037] – “the slowness distribution σ(x, z) is determined from the local echo phase shift Δτ(x, z, φ, φ0) in an iterative manner”,[0072], [0073], For clarification [0038] discloses “acoustic refraction is the bending of sound rays, caused by a spatial gradient of the slowness distribution. This results in image distortion and thus errors in the echo phase shift”).
Frenz is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasound image reconstruction.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the slowness as an imaging parameter of Frenz to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “a contrast resolution of better than 0.8% of average sound speed at a resolution of 1 mm can be achieved with the method according to the invention” (Frenz [0002]).
Regarding claim 3, Hennersperger, Eldar, and Frenz disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 2.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the beamforming comprises time-of-flight estimates computed by integrating the slowness along straight ray paths.
However Frenz discloses wherein the beamforming comprises time-of-flight estimates computed by integrating the slowness along straight ray paths ([0070] – “The arrival time t of the Tx pulse at the scatterer at a position (x, z) in the imaging plane is entirely determined by the line integral of the slowness (inverse of sound speed) along a straight line between the probe aperture and the scatterer”).
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the slowness as an imaging parameter of Frenz to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “a contrast resolution of better than 0.8% of average sound speed at a resolution of 1 mm can be achieved with the method according to the invention” (Frenz [0002]).
Regarding claim 4, Hennersperger, Eldar, and Frenz disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 2.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the beamforming comprises time-of-flight estimates computed by integrating the slowness along bent ray paths to compensate for refraction.
However Frenz discloses wherein the beamforming comprises time-of-flight estimates computed by integrating the slowness along bent ray paths to compensate for refraction ([0070] – “The arrival time t of the Tx pulse at the scatterer at a position (x, z) in the imaging plane is entirely determined by the line integral of the slowness (inverse of sound speed)”, [0037] – “the slowness distribution σ(x, z) is determined from the local echo phase shift Δτ(x, z, φ, φ0) in an iterative manner, which particularly allows one to compensate for the effect of acoustic refraction”, [0038] – “Acoustic refraction is the bending of sound rays”).
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the slowness as an imaging parameter of Frenz to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “a contrast resolution of better than 0.8% of average sound speed at a resolution of 1 mm can be achieved with the method according to the invention” (Frenz [0002]).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barbosa (EP 3881770A1).
Regarding claim 7, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does note teach wherein the transmit elements and receive elements are embedded in one or more flexible transducers.
However Barbosa discloses wherein the transmit elements and receive elements are embedded in one or more flexible transducers ([0024] – “the transducer array is flexible”).
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the flexible transducer array of Barbosa to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the system can advantageously adjust its geometry to a probe or sample surface, e.g., a patient's body” (Barbosa [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does note teach wherein the imaging parameter is poses of the transmit elements and of the receive elements, and wherein the channel signals comprise multiple pulse-echo acquisitions as the transmit elements and receive elements are swept across the imaging target in any direction.
However Barbosa discloses wherein the imaging parameter is poses of the transmit elements and of the receive elements ([0330] – “minimization of B-mode image entropy”, [0357] – “the estimated location and orientation of the individual transducer elements”), and wherein the channel signals comprise multiple pulse-echo acquisitions as the transmit elements and receive elements are swept across the imaging target in any direction ([0058] – “driver module for the switching array, may be configured to selectively switch rows and/or columns of transducer array elements to define an active sub-array and a sub-array location in a larger matrix of the system's transducer array”).
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the control of sub-arrays of Barbosa to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the addressing of the transducer array elements can be done in a less complex way, as they will be addressed in the groups of transducer array elements which are called a sub-array” (Barbosa [0066]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ramamurthy (US 20230082109).
Regarding claim 9, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein an initial estimate of element poses is obtained using motion tracking sensors.
However Ramamurthy discloses wherein the initial estimate of element poses is obtained using motion tracking sensors ([0040] – “localization sensor for determining the position and orientation of the FIG. 3A transducer element”).
Ramamurthy is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasound imaging.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the localization sensor of Ramamurthy to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the position and orientation of transducer element 20 may be processed by an ultrasound system to calculate the acoustic path length…After the path length is calculated, the ultrasound system may cause transducer element 20 to deliver ultrasound energy with certain phases to focus the ultrasound energy at the target region.” (Ramamurthy [0118]).
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kruse (US 20200284902).
Regarding claim 12, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the dataset comprises a full synthetic aperture acquisition.
However Kruse discloses wherein the dataset comprises a full synthetic aperture acquisition ([0067] – “partial or full synthetic transmit aperture imaging”).
Kruse is an analogous art considering it is in the field of enhancing ultrasound images.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the full synthetic aperture imaging of Kruse to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “fewer transmits than are required of other coded aperture schemes while still maintaining similar spatial resolution and contrast resolution” (Kruse [0067]).
Regarding claim 13, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the dataset comprises an incomplete synthetic aperture acquisition.
However Kruse discloses wherein the dataset comprises an incomplete synthetic aperture acquisition ([0067] – “partial or full synthetic transmit aperture imaging”).
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the incomplete synthetic aperture imaging of Kruse to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “fewer transmits than are required of other coded aperture schemes while still maintaining similar spatial resolution and contrast resolution” (Kruse [0067]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Iguchi (US 20230017227).
Regarding claim 16, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein a new channel data sample is acquired and used to update the estimated imaging parameter.
However Iguchi discloses wherein a new channel data sample is acquired and used to update the estimated imaging parameter ([0056] – “The server 1 sequentially inputs the medical images for training to the estimation model 141 to update the parameter”).
Iguchi is an analogous art considering it is in the field of enhancing ultrasound images.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the new data to update the parameter of Iguchi to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “the cause of the image defect occurring in the medical image can be suitably removed” (Iguchi [0009]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Napolitano (US 20140378834).
Regarding claim 17, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the dataset is modified by downshifting to baseband via IQ demodulation.
However Napolitano discloses wherein the dataset is modified by downshifting to baseband via IQ demodulation ([0075] – “channel domain data can either be received RF, demodulated RF to IF, or demodulated to baseband IQ signals from the transducer elements”).
Napolitano is an analogous art considering it is in the field of ultrasound image reconstruction.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the IQ demodulation of Napolitano to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows for the phase information to be known.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger (US 20210132223) and Eldar (US 20250288276) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rouet (US 20240185424).
Regarding claim 18, Hennersperger and Eldar disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Hennersperger does not teach wherein the imaging parameter is embedded in the weights of a neural network where the weights act as an implicit neural representation of a physical quantity of interest.
However Rouet discloses wherein the imaging parameter is embedded in the weights of a neural network where the weights act as an implicit neural representation of a physical quantity of interest ([0012] – “by using PCA, the shape of the organ and the modes of deformation may be learned. This model of deformations may then be used to provide a context by which the predicted binary mask and ground-truth binary mask may be compared. The PCA loss term may be based on this comparison, and so PCA based shape learning is embedded in the learning weights of the NN.”).
Rouet is an analogous art considering it is in the field of using a neural network for image processing.
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 method of Hennersperger to incorporate the parameter being embedded in the weights of the neural network of Rouet to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “improved performance for medical image segmentation may be achieved by proposed embodiments” (Rouet [0060]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 10, 11, 19 and 21 are 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.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights