Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1 and 3-11 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 04/06/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/06/2026 with respect to claim(s) 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.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Kawagishi is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 3-6 and 9-11 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Ishihara is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 10 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawagishi et al. (US 20070197916 A1, published August 23, 2007), hereinafter referred to as Kawagishi.
Regarding claim 1, Kawagishi teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (Fig. 20, ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1C), comprising:
an ultrasonic probe having a plurality of elements (Fig. 21, plurality of elements of ultrasound probe 3) and configured to transmit an ultrasonic beams a plurality of times for amplitude modulation (see para. 0104 – “As shown in FIG. 10, the ultrasonic pulses p1, p2 and p3 can be set to have various frequency spectra. Regarding the ultrasonic pulses p1 and p2, at least one of the center frequency, the amplitude, and the band can be set to differ from one another [amplitude modulation].”),
the plurality of elements being arranged as a plurality of element rows in an elevation direction, each of the plurality of element rows including the plurality of elements arranged in an azimuth direction (Figs. 21-24, rows of apertures A and B; see para. 0148 – “For example, as shown in FIG. 21, when the ultrasonic probe 3 has a plurality of transmission apertures 3 a arranged one-dimensionally on a probe surface, a first transmission aperture group A and a second transmission aperture group B are set.”); and
processing circuitry (Fig. 20, apparatus main body 2C as processing circuitry) configured to
change, at each transmission of the ultrasonic beams, a transmission aperture of each of the plurality of element rows arranged in the elevation direction so as to form an azimuth-direction transmission aperture width corresponding to an azimuth-direction length of the element rows for each ultrasonic beam (see para. 0147 – “As shown in FIGS. 21 to 24, in the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1C, different transmission apertures 3 a of the ultrasonic probe 3 used for the transmission/reception are used for each transmission/reception.”), and
control the transmission aperture of the ultrasonic probe so as to make element rows used for the transmission different between at least some of the plurality of transmissions, thereby changing a transmission aperture area among the plurality of transmissions, while matching a size of ultrasonic beams associated with a first transmission and a third transmission with a size of an ultrasonic beam transmitted through all elements associated with a second transmission (Figs. 22-24, aperture size of third ultrasonic pulse (Fig. 24) is the same as the combined aperture size of first ultrasonic pulse (Fig. 22) and second ultrasonic pulse (Fig. 23); see para. 0155 – “A transmission order shown in FIGS. 22 to 24 may be changed randomly.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Kawagishi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to control the transmission aperture so as not to transmit ultrasonic beams associated with the first transmission and the third transmission from some of the elements that are adjacent to each other in the elevation direction (Figs. 21-24, transmit first and second ultrasonic pulses (Fig. 22 and 23) from some elements).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Kawagishi further teaches wherein the ultrasonic probe includes three element rows divided in the elevation direction, and ultrasonic beams associated with the first transmission and the third transmission include an ultrasonic beam from one element row located at a middle portion in the elevation direction and respective ultrasonic beams from two element rows located at end portions in the elevation direction (Figs. 22-24, apertures A and B as at least three element rows).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Kawagishi further teaches wherein the plurality of transmissions of the ultrasonic beams are three transmissions of ultrasonic beams (Figs. 22-24, three transmissions of ultrasonic beams), the ultrasonic beam associated with the second transmission is transmitted second, and the processing circuitry is further configured to invert a phase or polarity for each transmission (see para. 0136 – “On the other hand, three pulse shapes shown in FIG. 18 correspond to pulse shapes of the ultrasonic pulses p1 and p2 when the ultrasonic pulses p1 and p2 having different center frequencies are transmitted with the phase of one of the pulses (e.g., the ultrasonic pulse p2) being inverted, and a pulse shape of an ultrasonic pulse p3 obtained by combining the ultrasonic pulses p1 and p2 having opposite phases by the linear operation.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Kawagishi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a contrast-enhanced image based on a differential signal between an echo signal corresponding to the ultrasonic beam associated with the second transmission and one or more signals corresponding to ultrasonic beams associated with the first transmission and the third transmission (Fig. 2; see para. 0086 – “Accordingly, a result obtained by adding the reception echoes E1 and E2 and subtracting the reception echo E3 corresponds to a pulse signal Eb containing only components of the bubble echoes, which are nonlinear components in the fundamental band of each of the reception echoes E1, E2, and E3.”; see para. 0092 – “Accordingly, at step S5, not only the contrast image but also the tissue image are generated and displayed.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Kawagishi further teaches wherein the plurality of times are not less than three (Figs. 22-24, transmitting ultrasonic pulses three times).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Kawagishi further teaches wherein ultrasonic beams associated with the first transmission and the third transmission include a plurality of ultrasonic beams having respectively different patterns (Figs. 22-23, first ultrasonic pulse (Fig. 22) and second ultrasonic pulse (Fig. 23) having different aperture patterns).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawagishi in view of Patel et al. (US 20210128114A1, published May 6, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Patil.
Regarding claim 7, Kawagishi teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 6 above.
Kawagishi teaches generating a contrast-enhanced image, but does not explicitly teach changing a transmission aperture control scheme when a bioacoustic shadow is in the image.
Whereas, Patil, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine whether or not a bioacoustic shadow has occurred in the contrast-enhanced image; and change a transmission aperture control scheme of the ultrasonic probe when the bioacoustic shadow has occurred in the contrast-enhanced image (see para. 0035 "Beamformer parameters, as referred to herein, include both transmit and receive beamforming parameters, such as a number and position of activated and deactivated transducer elements, transducer element weights, delays, beam angles, and the like. In various embodiments, the parameter adjustment processor160 may be operable to adjust the beamformer parameters to go around or otherwise avoid acoustically hard anatomies detected by the enhancement detection processor 150 to enhance regions below the acoustically hard anatomies by eliminating shadows and dark regions.").
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 generating a contrast-enhanced image, as disclosed in Kawagishi, by also changing a transmission aperture control scheme when a bioacoustic shadow is in the image, as disclosed in Pati. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further improve image contrast and/or sharpness of an anatomy of interest, as taught in Patil (see para. 0035).
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawagishi in view of Ishihara et al. (US 20130331699 A1, published December 12, 2013), hereinafter referred to as Ishihara.
Regarding claim 10, Kawagishi teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above, and
Kawagishi further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to set the transmission aperture of each ultrasonic beam so as to group a plurality of elements adjacent to each other in an azimuth direction of the ultrasonic probe into element groups for transmission of the ultrasonic beam (Figs. 21-24, apertures having a plurality of transducer elements; see para .0147 – “Dividing the transmission apertures 3 a of the ultrasonic probe 3 into a plurality of groups, each having at least one exclusive ultrasonic transducer…”).
Kawagishi teaches groups of transducer elements, but does not explicitly teach setting an interval corresponding to at least two elements between the element groups.
Whereas, Ishihara, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches set an interval corresponding to at least two elements between the element groups adjacent to each other in the azimuth direction, and set the element groups in a checker pattern in the elevation direction (Fig. 16B, checker pattern of elements having an interval of two elements in second and third transmissions).
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 groups of transducer elements, as disclosed in Kawagishi, by also setting an interval corresponding to at least two elements between the element groups, as disclosed in Ishihara. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to obtain a THI (tissue harmonic imaging) image using the nonlinear signal with a high S/N (signal to noise) ratio, from which the grating lobe is completely eliminated, as taught in Ishihara (see para. 0153).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Kawagishi further teaches wherein the element group includes a plurality of elements adjacent to each other in the elevation direction (Figs. 21-24, rows of apertures A and B as element groups).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Lambert (US 20240004064 A1, published January 4, 204 with a priority date of October 27, 2022) discloses at least two different intensities or amplitudes of emitted pulses (i.e. the first pulse having a first intensity and the second and third pulse having each the same second intensity) may be produced by varying the transmit voltage or by varying the aperture size (i.e. by varying the number of transducers elements contributing to emit the emitted ultrasound wave).
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 Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
