DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-20 are pending in the application. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1-4, 6-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0137] recites “where i in W(I,j) denotes a weight data subset of the original image, j denotes an j-th piece of first weight information in a weight dataset corresponding to the original image i”. This appears to have “i” defined as two different things: a weight data subset and an original image. The Examiner recommends amending the specification to clarify the meaning of the variables.
[0148] recites “For example, as shown in Fig. 4B, the system for ultrasound imaging may coherently combine weighted ultrasound sub-images {P11, P12, …, P1m} to obtain a composition sub-image C1 corresponding to the first weight image W1”. This is not what Fig. 4B is showing. The weighted ultrasound sub-images {P11, P21, … Pn1} are the images which appear to be combined to obtain the composition sub-image C1. The Examiner recommends amending the specification or drawings to clarify which images are combined.
[0183] recites “The third weight information refers to data used for a weighted processing on the approximate image. and the third weight information may include weight information corresponding to each pixel point or voxel point in the approximate image. and the fourth weight information refers to data used for a weighted processing on the detailed image. and the fourth weight information may include weight information corresponding to each pixel point or voxel point in the detailed image.”. It should recite “The third weight information refers to data used for a weighted processing on the approximate image, and the third weight information may include weight information corresponding to each pixel point or voxel point in the approximate image, and the fourth weight information refers to data used for a weighted processing on the detailed image, and the fourth weight information may include weight information corresponding to each pixel point or voxel point in the detailed image.”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4-5, 12, 15-16, and 18-19 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “emission angles, or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different” in lines 4-5. It should recite “wherein emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves are different”.
Claim 4 recites “wherein the for each weight data subset” in claim 1. It should recite “where for each weight data subset”.
Claim 4 recites “a plurality of pieces of first weight information” in lines 3-4. It should recite “the plurality of pieces of first weight information”.
Claim 5 recites “each composite sub-image” in line 5. It should recite “each composite sub-image of the plurality of composite sub-images”.
Claim 12 recites “wherein the obtaining a plurality of original images” in line 1. It should recite “wherein obtaining the plurality of original images”.
Claim 12 recites “a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves” in line 2. It should recite “the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves”.
Claim 15 recites “wherein the determining a target image” in line 1. It should recite “wherein determining the target image”.
Claim 15 recites “a plurality of composite sub-images” in lines 1-2. It should recite “the plurality of composite sub-images”.
Claim 16 recites “each composite sub-image” in line 3. It should recite “each composite sub-image of the plurality of composite sub-images”.
Claim 18 recites “emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different” in lines 4-5. It should recite “wherein emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves are different”.
Claim 19 recites “emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different” in lines 6-7. It should recite “wherein emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves are different”.
Claim 19 recites “counts of the plurality of pieces of first weight information for the plurality of original images being the same” in lines 13-14. It should recite “counts of the plurality of pieces of first weight information corresponding to the respective weight dataset corresponding to each original image of the plurality of original images being the same.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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 1 recites “obtaining a plurality of original images produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves, emission angles, or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different”. It is not clear what the distinction between the plurality of original images produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves, compared to obtaining a plurality of original images produced at emissions positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as stating “obtaining a plurality of original images produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves, wherein emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves are different”.
Claim 1 recites “the weight dataset” in line 10 and line 15. It is not clear if this is referring to a specific weight dataset of the weight datasets determined for each original image of the plurality of original images, or if this is referring to every dataset which was determined for each original image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 1 recites “a plurality of composite sub-images” in line 14. It is not clear if this plurality if made up of the “composite sub-image” previously determined, or if this is setting forth a new plurality of composite sub-images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 2 recites “a same weight data subset” in line 2. It is not clear how the weight data subsets are “the same” if they are in different weight datasets. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, if the first weight information of the weight data subsets is the same, it will be considered the “same weight data subset”.
Claim 4 recites “a composite image” in line 2. It is not clear if this is referring to the composition sub-image previously set forth, or if this is referring to a new composite sub-image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former interpretation will be used.
Claim 4 recites “the weight dataset” in line 5. It is not clear is this is referring to a specific weight dataset of the weight datasets determined for each original image of the plurality of original images, or if this is referring to every dataset which was determined for each original image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 5 recites “a target image” in line 1. It is not clear if this is referring to the target image previously set forth, or if this is setting forth a new target image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 5 recites “a plurality of composite sub-images” in lines 1-2. It is not clear if this is referring to plurality of composite sub-images previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new composite sub images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 7 recites “in response to the ultrasound waves being wide beams” in line 2. It is not clear if “in response to” is a contingent limitation (e.g. if the ultrasound waves are wide beams), or if this is narrowing the ultrasound waves to be wide beams. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner notes that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
The term “wide beams” in claim 7 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide beams” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For the purposes of examination, if the ultrasound beams are not focused, they will be considered wide beams.
Claim 9 recites “in response to the ultrasound waves being focused ultrasound beams” in line 2. It is not clear if “in response to” is a contingent limitation (e.g. if the ultrasound waves are focused beams), or if this is narrowing the ultrasound waves to be focused beams. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner notes that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Claim 10 recites “in response to the ultrasound waves being focused ultrasound beams” in line 2. It is not clear if “in response to” is a contingent limitation (e.g. if the ultrasound waves are focused beams), or if this is narrowing the ultrasound waves to be focused beams. Clarification is required. For the purpose of examination, the former definition will be used. The Examiner notes that “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” (MPEP 2111.04(II)).
Claim 10 recites “or a combination of the plurality of composite sub-images is a complete image” in lines 5-6. It is not clear what this is an alternative too. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the “combination” step will be considered an alternative to the first weight information being represented by a first weight image.
Claim 15 recites “the weight dataset” in line 3. It is not clear is this is referring to a specific weight dataset of the weight datasets determined for each original image of the plurality of original images, or if this is referring to every dataset which was determined for each original image. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 18 recites “weighted original images” in line 9. It is not clear if this is referring to the plurality of weighted original images, or if this includes a subset of the plurality of weighted original images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 18 recites “the first weight image” in line 9. It is not clear if this is referring to one of the plurality of first weight images, or if this is specifying a specific first weight image of the plurality of first weight images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
Claim 18 recites “a plurality of composite sub-images” in line 10. It is not clear if this plurality if made up of the “composite sub-image” previously determined, or if this is setting forth a new plurality of composite sub-images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 19 recites “a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves” in lines 8-9. It is not clear if this is referring to the plurality of emissions previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new emissions. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 19 recites “a plurality of pieces of first weight information” in line 17. It is not clear if this is referring to the first weight information previously set forth, or if this is setting forth new weight information. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 19 recites “a plurality of composite sub-images” in line 19. It is not clear if this plurality if made up of the “composite sub-image” previously determined, or if this is setting forth a new plurality of composite sub-images. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 19 recites “a plurality of weight data subsets” in line 20. It is not clear if this is referring to all of the weight data subsets in the weight dataset, or if this encompasses a subset of the weight data subsets in the weight dataset. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the former definition will be used.
Claim 20 recites “the method of claim 1” in lines 3-4. It is not clear if this encompasses the entirety of claim 1 (e.g. including the “implemented on a computing device having at least one processor and at least one storage device” language”), or only the portions after “the method comprising”. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the latter definition will be used.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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 (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 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 1-3, 6, 9-11, 13, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0202518 A1) in view of Hisatsu (U.S PGPub 2022/0378404 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Vignon teaches a method for ultrasound imaging (Abstract), implemented on a computing device having at least one processor [0063] and at least one storage device [0043]+[0130], the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of original images (Fig. 1, 126+128+130) produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves [0064],
emission angles, or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different [0064] (the emission angles are different);
for each original image of the plurality of original images, determining a weight dataset corresponding to the each original image [0069] (the weighting images 184, 186, 188 are the weight datasets for each respective image), the weight dataset including a plurality of weight data subsets (the columns of weighting inputs 180a+180b+180c (i.e. all the weighting inputs when x= 1, 2,… n can be considered a subset)) [0069]+[0107], a count of the plurality of weight data subsets for each of the plurality of original images being the same [0107] (the number of columns of pixels in the image is the same [0065]+[0107] so the number subsets are the same);
determining a target image (Fig. 1, 190) based on a plurality of sub-images corresponding to the plurality of weight data subsets in the weight dataset [0102]-[0107] (the weighted, uncompounded image, is a sub image).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach for each weight data subset in the weight dataset, determining a composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset based on the plurality of original images and a plurality of pieces of first weight information corresponding to the each weight data subset.
Hisatsu teaches a system for generating an ultrasonic image (Abstract). In this system, for each weight data subset in the weight dataset (Fig. 1, 16 and 18 are weight data subsets of the weight dataset (the weight dataset being interpreted as both the weighters 16+18)) [0038], determining a composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset based on the plurality of original images (Sub-image) [0037] and a plurality of pieces of first weight information (first weight distribution) corresponding to the each weight data subset [0039] (weighted sub images are synthesized to make a synthesized image); and determining a target image based on a plurality of composite sub-images [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to determine composite sub-images for determining the target image, as taught by Hisatsu, because this improved the quality of the target image, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach wherein at least two pieces of first weight information corresponding to a same weight data subset among at least two of the plurality of weight datasets are the same.
Hisatsu further teaches wherein at least two pieces of first weight information corresponding to a same weight data subset among at least two of the plurality of weight datasets are the same [0025] (in certain instances, all of the weight information of the weight data subset can be 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight information so that it is the same as another weight information, as taught by Hisatsu, as choosing the appropriate weights allows for improved image quality, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon further teaches wherein the first weight information corresponding to the each original image includes a weight value corresponding to each position in the each original image [0103] (it is a per-pixel weighting, which corresponds to each position in the image).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach wherein the first weight information is denoted by a first weight image, the first weight image including one or more weighted regions, and weighted regions of different first weight images being different.
Hisatsu further teaches wherein the first weight information is denoted by a first weight image (Fig. 4, WP1) [0053], the first weight image including one or more weighted regions [0053]+[0055], and weighted regions of different first weight images being different [0053]+[0055]+[0057] (WP1 is different from WP2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight information to use a weight image for the weighting, as taught by Hisatsu, as choosing the appropriate weights allows for improved image quality, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach in response to the ultrasound waves being focused ultrasound beams, the first weight information is represented by a first weight image, the first weight image including one or more weighted regions, the first weight image is determined such that a width of the one or more weighted regions of the first weight image at a focal position of the focused ultrasound beams is narrower than that at other positions.
Hisatsu further teaches in response to the ultrasound waves being focused ultrasound beams [0047], the first weight information is represented by a first weight image (Fig. 4, WP1) [0053], the first weight image including one or more weighted regions (Fig. 4, WP1) [0053], the first weight image is determined such that a width of the one or more weighted regions of the first weight image at a focal position of the focused ultrasound beams is narrower than that at other positions [0055].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight information to use a weight image for the weighting, as taught by Hisatsu, as choosing the appropriate weights allows for improved image quality, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon further teaches a combination of the plurality of composite sub-images is a complete image [0102]-[0107] (the final image is a “complete” image).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach in response to the ultrasound waves being focused ultrasound beams, the first weight information is represented by a first weight image, the first weight image is determined such that each of the plurality of composite sub-images includes an hourglass-type image region
Hisatsu further teaches in response to the ultrasound waves being focused ultrasound beams [0047], the first weight information is represented by a first weight image (Fig. 7, WP3) [0070], the first weight image is determined such that each of the plurality of composite sub-images includes an hourglass-type image region (Fig. 7, La1, Lb1…. each contain an hourglass-type image region) [0070]-[0071].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight information to use a weight image for the weighting, as taught by Hisatsu, as choosing the appropriate weights allows for improved image quality, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach wherein the one or more weighted regions of the first weight image include a high-weighted region, and locations of high-weighted regions of different first weight images are different.
Hisatsu further teaches the one or more weighted regions including a high-weighted region (Fig. 7, 94+96, the “high weighted region” is the area around the peak) [0071], and locations of high-weighted regions of different weight images are different (Fig,. 7, 94+96 of WP3 are in different lateral positions than the high-weighted regions 98+100 of WP4) [0071]+[0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight information to use a weight image for the weighting, as taught by Hisatsu, as choosing the appropriate weights allows for improved image quality, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of reference of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon further teaches determining the first weight information based on at least one of a type of the ultrasound waves, a count of the plurality of weight data subsets, the plurality of original images or parameters corresponding to the plurality of original images [0035] (the brightness of the pixels across the images is a parameter corresponding to the plurality of images).
Regarding Claim 18, Vignon teaches a method for ultrasound imaging (Abstract), implemented on a computing device having at least one processor [0063] and at least one storage device [0043]+[0130], the method comprising:
obtaining a plurality of original images (Fig. 1, 126+128+130) produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves [0064],
emission angles, or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different [0064] (the emission angles are different);
for each of the plurality of original image [0064], a plurality of first weight images [0069]l
determining a target image (Fig. 1, 190) based on a plurality of sub-images corresponding to the plurality of first weight images [0102]-[0107] (the weighted, uncompounded image, is a sub image).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach determining a plurality of weighted original images and for each of the plurality of first weight images, determining a composite sub-image based on weighted original images corresponding to the first weight image.
Hisatsu teaches a system for generating an ultrasonic image (Abstract). This system generates a plurality of weighted original images (Fig. 4, La1+Lb1) [0053], for each of the plurality of first weight images [0053], determining a composite sub-image (Sub-image) [0037] based on weighted original images corresponding to the first weight image [0039] (weighted sub images are synthesized to make a synthesized image) and determining a target image based on a plurality of composite sub-images [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to determine composite sub-images for determining the target image, as taught by Hisatsu, because this improved the quality of the target image, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 19, Vignon teaches a system for ultrasound imaging (Abstract) comprising:
at least one storage device including a set of instructions [0043]+[0130];
at least one processor [0063] configured to communicate with the at least one storage device [0130], wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations [0130] including:
emitting a plurality of ultrasound waves, emission angles or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different [0064] (the emission angles are different);
obtaining a plurality of original images (Fig. 1, 126+128+130) produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves [0064],
emission angles, or emission positions corresponding to the plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves being different [0064] (the emission angles are different);
for each original image of the plurality of original images, determining a weight dataset corresponding to the each original image [0069] (the weighting images 184, 186, 188 are the weight datasets for each respective image), the weight dataset including first weight information [0069], the first weight information including a plurality of pieces of first weight information (weighting inputs 180a+180b+180c) [0069]+[0107], a count of the plurality of pieces of first weight information for the plurality of original images being the same [0107] (the number of columns of pixels in the image is the same [0065]+[0107] so the count of information is the same);
determining a target image (Fig. 1, 190) based on a plurality of sub-images corresponding to the plurality of weight data subsets in the weight dataset [0102]-[0107] (the weighted, uncompounded image, is a sub image).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach for each weight data subset in the weight dataset, determining a composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset based on the plurality of original images and a plurality of pieces of first weight information corresponding to the each weight data subset.
Hisatsu teaches a system for generating an ultrasonic image (Abstract). In this system, for each weight data subset in the weight dataset (Fig. 1, 16 and 18 are weight data subsets of the weight dataset (the weight dataset being interpreted as both the weighters 16+18)) [0038], determining a composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset based on the plurality of original images (Sub-image) [0037] and a plurality of pieces of first weight information (first weight distribution) corresponding to the each weight data subset [0039] (weighted sub images are synthesized to make a synthesized image); and determining a target image based on a plurality of composite sub-images [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to determine composite sub-images for determining the target image, as taught by Hisatsu, because this improved the quality of the target image, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Regarding Claim 20, Vignon teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium [0043]+[0130], comprising at least one set of instructions [0130], wherein when executed by at least one processor of a computer device [0063], the at least one set of instructions directs the at least one processor to perform the method of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon et al. in view of Hisatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0253586 A1).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed.
Vignon fails to explicitly teach for each weight data subset in the weight dataset, determining a composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset based on the plurality of original images and a plurality of pieces of first weight information corresponding to the each weight data subset includes: for each weight data subset in the weight dataset, determining a plurality of weighted original images based on the plurality of original images and the plurality of pieces of first weight information corresponding to the each weight data subset.
Hisatsu teaches a system for generating an ultrasonic image (Abstract). In this system, for each weight data subset in the weight dataset (Fig. 1, 16 and 18 are weight data subsets of the weight dataset (the weight dataset being interpreted as both the weighters 16+18)) [0038], determining a composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset based on the plurality of original images (Sub-image) [0037] and a plurality of pieces of first weight information (first weight distribution) corresponding to the each weight data subset [0039] (weighted sub images are synthesized to make a synthesized image); and determining a target image based on a plurality of composite sub-images [0041]. In this system, for each weight data subset in the weight dataset (Fig. 4, WP1+WP2), determining a plurality of weighted original images (Fig. 4, La1+Lb2 and La2+Lb2) based on the plurality of original images and the plurality of pieces of first weight information corresponding to the each weight data subset [0053]-[0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to determine composite sub-images for determining the target image, as taught by Hisatsu, because this improved the quality of the target image, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
The combination fails to explicitly teach determining the composite sub-image corresponding to the each weight data subset by performing coherent compounding on the plurality of weighted original images.
Zhang teaches an ultrasound imaging system (Abstract). This system uses coherent compounding on weighted images data in order to created contrast enhanced image data [0096].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to use coherent compounding on the plurality of weighted images to determine the composite sub image, as taught by Zhang, because this increases the signal to noise ratio and increases lateral resolution of the resulting image, as recognized by Zhang [0004]-[0005]+[0130].
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon in view of Hisatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ustuner (U.S Patent 6,432,054 B1).
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention as claimed. Vignon further teaches a combination of the plurality of composite sub-images is a complete image [0102]-[0107] (the final image is a “complete” image).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach in response to the ultrasound waves being wide beams.
Ustuner teaches a system for ultrasound imaging (Abstract). This system obtains a wide beam ultrasound signals (Col 6, lines 13-23).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the ultrasound signals of the combined system with wide-band signals, as taught by Ustuner, as the substitution for one known type of ultrasonic signal with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results of using wideband signals are reasonably predictable.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach wherein the first weight information is denoted by a first weight image, the first weight image including one or more weighted regions, the one or more weighted regions including a high-weighted region, different high-weighted regions in different first weight images have different positions or widths in a lateral direction of the first weight image.
Hisatsu further teaches wherein the first weight information is denoted by a first weight image (Fig. 7, WP3) [0070], the first weight image including one or more weighted regions [0070]+[0072], the one or more weighted regions including a high-weighted region (Fig. 7, 94+96, the “high weighted region” is the area around the peak) [0071], different high-weighted regions in different first weight images (Fig. 7, WP4) have different positions or widths in a lateral direction of the first weight images (Fig,. 7, 94+96 of WP3 are in different lateral positions than the high-weighted regions 98+100 of WP4) [0071]+[0073].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the weight information to use a weight image for the weighting, as taught by Hisatsu, as choosing the appropriate weights allows for improved image quality, as recognized by Hisatsu [0006].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon in view of Hisatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sornes et al. (U.S Patent 11,232,611 B2).
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon further teaches determining the first weight information based on at least one of a type of the ultrasound waves, a count of the plurality of weight data subsets, the plurality of original images or parameters corresponding to the plurality of original images [0035] (the brightness of the pixels across the images is a parameter corresponding to the plurality of images).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach a first weight prediction model, the first weight prediction model being a machine learning model.
Sornes teaches a system for reducing anomalies in ultrasound images (Abstract). This system weighs the ultrasound image using a machine learning model (Fig. 7, 706) (Col 14, lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weigh the images using a prediction model, as taught by Sornes, because this better reduces artifacts and anomalies in the ultrasound image, thereby increasing image quality, as recognized by Sornes (Col 2, lines 16-34).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon in view of Hisatsu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vignon et al. (U.S PGPub 2020/0200886 A1) (Vignon’886) and Sornes et al.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon further teaches wherein the determining a target image based on a plurality of composite sub-images corresponding to the plurality of weight data subsets in the weight dataset includes: determining the target image based on the plurality of composite sub-images [0102]-[0107] (the weighted, uncompounded image, is a sub image).
Vignon fails to explicitly teach second weight information, the second weight information being determined based on the plurality of composite sub-images.
Vignon’886 teaches a system for generating a compound image (Abstract). This system uses a first weighting and a second weighting on ultrasound sub-images to generate the compound ultrasound image [0094].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to further use a second weighting to generate the target (compound) images, as taught by Vignon’886, because this better reduces noise, thereby increasing the quality of the image, as recognized by Vignon’886 [0007].
The combination fails to explicitly teach a second weight prediction model, the second weight prediction model being a machine learning model.
Sornes teaches a system for reducing anomalies in ultrasound images (Abstract). This system weighs the ultrasound image using a machine learning model (Fig. 7, 706) (Col 14, lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weigh the images using a prediction model, as taught by Sornes, because this better reduces artifacts and anomalies in the ultrasound image, thereby increasing image quality, as recognized by Sornes (Col 2, lines 16-34).
Regarding Claim 16, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach wherein the determining the second weight information further includes: dividing each composite sub-image into a plurality of sub-regions, and determining sub-image quality of each sub-region of the plurality of sub-regions, respectively, and determining sub-weight information of the each sub-region based on the sub-image quality; and determining the second weight information based on the sub-weight information.
Sornes further teaches wherein the determining the second weight information further includes: dividing each composite sub-image into a plurality of sub-regions (Fig. 9, 902) (Col 15, lines 9-15), and determining sub-image quality of each sub-region of the plurality of sub-regions, respectively, (Fig. 9, 906-908) (Col 15, lines 16-32) (determining if the region has an anomaly is a determination of quality) and determining sub-weight information of the each sub-region based on the sub-image quality (Fig. 9, 910) (Col 15, lines 33-48); and determining the second weight information based on the sub-weight information (Col 15, lines 33-48) (the set of the individual sub-weights can be considered the “second weight information”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weigh the images using a prediction model, as taught by Sornes, because this better reduces artifacts and anomalies in the ultrasound image, thereby increasing image quality, as recognized by Sornes (Col 2, lines 16-34).
Regarding Claim 17, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Vignon fails to explicitly teach wherein the second weight information includes third weight information and fourth weight information, and the second weight information is determined by: applying a low-pass filter or a speckle smoothing filter to the plurality of composite sub-images to generate an approximate image; generating a detailed image based on the plurality of composite sub-images and the approximate image; determining the third weight information and the fourth weight information using the second weight prediction model based on the approximate image and the detailed image, the third weight information being applied to the approximate image and the fourth weight information being applied to the detailed image.
Vignon’886 further teaches wherein the second weight information includes third weight information and fourth weight information [0103], and the second weight information is determined by: applying a low-pass filter or a speckle smoothing filter to the plurality of composite sub-images to generate an approximate image [0099]; generating a detailed image based on the plurality of composite sub-images and the approximate image [0100]; determining the third weight information and the fourth weight information based on the approximate image and the detailed image [0108]+[0114] (the weightings are dynamically decided based on the image content), the third weight information being applied to the approximate image and the fourth weight information being applied to the detailed image [0102].
The combination fails to explicitly teach a second weight prediction model.
Sornes teaches a system for reducing anomalies in ultrasound images (Abstract). This system weighs the ultrasound image using a machine learning model (Fig. 7, 706) (Col 14, lines 22-27).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to weigh the images using a prediction model, as taught by Sornes, because this better reduces artifacts and anomalies in the ultrasound image, thereby increasing image quality, as recognized by Sornes (Col 2, lines 16-34).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 and 12 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the determining a target image based on a plurality of composite sub-images corresponding to the plurality of weight data subsets in the weight dataset includes: generating a processed composite sub-image by performing an envelope detection processing on each composite sub-image; for the each composite sub-image, determining second weight information by performing quality analysis on the each composite sub-image or the processed composite sub-image corresponding to the each composite sub-image; and generating the target image based on the processed composite sub-image and the second weight information corresponding to the each composite sub-image”. These features, in combination with the features of the independent claim, are not taught by the prior art without the benefit of improper hindsight.
Vignon teaches performing envelope detection on the ultrasound image [0067], but does not teach “performing an envelope detection processing on each composite sub-image; for the each composite sub-image, determining second weight information by performing quality analysis on the each composite sub-image or the processed composite sub-image corresponding to the each composite sub-image; and generating the target image based on the processed composite sub-image and the second weight information corresponding to the each composite sub-image”. Hisatsu teaches performing envelope detection on sub-images [0063], but does not teach “for the each composite sub-image, determining second weight information by performing quality analysis on the each composite sub-image or the processed composite sub-image corresponding to the each composite sub-image; and generating the target image based on the processed composite sub-image and the second weight information corresponding to the each composite sub-image”. Sornes teaches “determining second weight information by performing quality analysis on the each composite sub-image”, but does not teach ““performing an envelope detection processing on each composite sub-image” or “generating the target image based on the processed composite sub-image and the second weight information corresponding to the each composite sub-image”. None of the other cited references teach the claimed features. Therefore, claim 5 is non-obvious over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim.
Claim 12 recites “the obtaining a plurality of original images produced based on a plurality of emissions of ultrasound waves includes: determining a stage scanning feature based on a stage scanning result of emitted ultrasound waves by using a scanning feature extraction layer of a parameter prediction model, the parameter prediction model being a machine learning model; and determining, by using a parameter prediction layer of the parameter prediction model, subsequent emission parameters and a count of subsequent emissions of the ultrasound waves based on, at least one of a historical count of emissions of emitted ultrasound waves, historical emission parameters of the emitted ultrasound waves, the stage scanning feature or a standard image”. These features, in combination with the features of the independent claim, are not taught by the prior art without the benefit of improper hindsight.
None of the cited references teach “determining a stage scanning feature based on a stage scanning result of emitted ultrasound waves by using a scanning feature extraction layer of a parameter prediction model, the parameter prediction model being a machine learning model; and determining, by using a parameter prediction layer of the parameter prediction model, subsequent emission parameters and a count of subsequent emissions of the ultrasound waves based on, at least one of a historical count of emissions of emitted ultrasound waves, historical emission parameters of the emitted ultrasound waves, the stage scanning feature or a standard image”. Poole et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0374165 A1) and McLaughlin (U.S PGPub 11,064,977 B2) each teach a method for automatically setting acquisition parameters for acquiring an ultrasound image (Abstract). However, neither references teach “determining, by using a parameter prediction layer of the parameter prediction model, subsequent emission parameters and a count of subsequent emissions of the ultrasound waves based on, at least one of a historical count of emissions of emitted ultrasound waves, historical emission parameters of the emitted ultrasound waves, the stage scanning feature or a standard image”. Therefore, claim 12 is non-obvious over the prior art, and would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Poole et al. (U.S PGPub 2019/0374165 A1) which teaches a system for automatically setting acquisition parameters.
McLaughlin (U.S Patent 11,064,977 B2), which teaches a system for automatically identifying a body structure and selecting ultrasonic acquisition parameters.
Zhang et al. (U.S PGPub 2017/0301095 A1), which teaches a method for generating a composite image.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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 at (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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798