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
The amendment of 08/05/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 13, and 18 have been amended. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application with claims 1, 8, and 16 being independent.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 2, 6, 8, 9, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0305441) hereinafter “Lin”.
Regarding claim 1, Lin discloses an ultrasound system [see abstract of Lin], comprising:
an ultrasound probe [ultrasound transducer 16; see FIG. 1 and [0014] of Lin] that transmits ultrasound imaging beams [see [0014]] in accordance with combinations of settings; [[0014]; the first ultrasound signal 18 includes multiple first signal parameters]
a display [display monitor 34; see FIG. 1 and [0016]] that displays images [see [0016] of Lin] based on feedback generated from the ultrasound imaging beams; and [see [0016]]
an ultrasound base [processor 38, see FIG. 1 and [0015] of Lin] interfaced with the ultrasound probe [transducer 16] and the display [monitor 34], wherein the ultrasound system is configured to automatically progress through a plurality of combinations of settings of the plurality of combinations of settings for transmitting the ultrasound imaging beams. [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through at least two different sets of parameters to optimize the quality of the image], quantify at least one feature manifested in an image at each combination of settings, [a quality metric is calculated as the feature in each of the set of combination of settings; see [0015] Lin] and determine at least one variation in manifestations of the at least one feature in images from at least two of the combination of settings based on quantifying the at least one feature.[see [0015] disclosing that the first quality metric is compared to the second quality metric to determine if a maximized image has been reached.]
Regarding claim 2, Lin further discloses a controller [Processor 38] comprising a memory and that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions [it is inherent that a processor used to go through an image processing algorithm includes a memory and executing instructions] wherein the controller is configured to execute the instructions to control the ultrasound probe [ultrasound transducer 16; see FIG. 1 and [0014] of Lin] to transmit ultrasound imaging beams [see [0014]] by automatically progressing through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through at least two different sets of parameters to optimize the quality of the image],
Regarding claim 6, Lin further discloses that the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update the plurality of combination of settings during a single progression through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see FIG. 2 and [0021]-[0022] of Lin]
Regarding claim 8, Lin discloses a method of operation for an ultrasound system, [see abstract of Lin] the method comprising:
transmitting, by an ultrasound probe, [ultrasound transducer 16; see FIG. 1 and [0014] of Lin] a first ultrasound imaging beam [see [0014]] in accordance with a first combination of settings; [see FIG. 2 and [0021]; the system would go through a first set of parameters to image the area],
displaying, [see [0016] by a display, [display monitor 34; see FIG. 1 and [0016]] a first image based on feedback generated from the first ultrasound imaging beam; [see [0016], [0021] and FIG. 2]
transmitting, by the ultrasound probe, a second ultrasound imaging beam in accordance with a second combination of settings; [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through a second set of parameters to image the area] displaying, by a display, a second image based on feedback generated from the second ultrasound imaging beam; and [see [0016], [0022] and FIG. 2]
automatically progressing through a plurality of combinations of settings including the first combination of settings and the second combination of settings. [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through at least two different sets of parameters to optimize the quality of the image],
quantifying at least one feature manifested in an image at each of the combination of settings, [a quality metric is calculated as the feature in each of the set of combination of settings; see [0015] Lin] and determining at least one variation in manifestations of the at least one feature in images from at least two of the combination of settings based on quantifying the at least one feature.[see [0015] disclosing that the first quality metric is compared to the second quality metric to determine if a maximized image has been reached.]
Regarding claim 9, Lin further discloses executing, by a controller [Processor 38] comprising a memory and that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions [it is inherent that a processor used to go through an image processing algorithm includes a memory and executing instructions] wherein the controller is configured to execute the instructions to control the ultrasound probe [ultrasound transducer 16; see FIG. 1 and [0014] of Lin] to transmit ultrasound imaging beams [see [0014]] by automatically progressing through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through at least two different sets of parameters to optimize the quality of the image],
Regarding claim 13, Lin further discloses adaptively updating the plurality of combinations of settings during a single progression through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see FIG. 2 and [0021]-[0022] of Lin]
Regarding claim 16, Lin further discloses a controller [Processor 38] comprising a memory and that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions [it is inherent that a processor used to go through an image processing algorithm includes a memory and executing instructions], wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the controller to:
control transmission, beam [see [0014] of Lin] by an ultrasound probe, ultrasound transducer 16; see FIG. 1 and [0014] of Lin] of a first ultrasound imaging beam in accordance with a first combination of settings in an automated progression; [see FIG. 2 and [0021]; the system would go through a first set of parameters to image the area],
control display [see [0016] of Tsymbalenko] by a display, [display monitor 34; see FIG. 1 and [0016]] of a first image based on feedback generated from the first ultrasound imaging beam; [see [0016], [0021] and FIG. 2]
control transmission, by the ultrasound probe, of a second ultrasound imaging beam in accordance with a second combination of settings in the automated progression; [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through a second set of parameters to image the area]
control display, by the display, of a second image based on feedback generated from the second ultrasound imaging beam; and [see [0016], [0022] and FIG. 2]
automatically progress through a plurality of combinations of settings for transmitting a plurality of ultrasound imaging beams including the first ultrasound imaging beam and the second ultrasound imaging beam. . [see FIG. 2 and [0022]; the system would go through at least two different sets of parameters to optimize the quality of the image],
quantifying at least one feature manifested in an image at each of the combination of settings, [a quality metric is calculated as the feature in each of the set of combination of settings; see [0015] Lin] and determining at least one variation in manifestations of the at least one feature in images from at least two of the combination of settings based on quantifying the at least one feature.[see [0015] disclosing that the first quality metric is compared to the second quality metric to determine if a maximized image has been reached.]
Regarding claim 19, Lin further discloses when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the controller further to: adaptively update the plurality of combinations of settings during a single progression through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see FIG. 2 and [0021]-[0022] of Lin]
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 3, 10, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0305441) hereinafter “Lin” in view of Bharat et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0271577) hereinafter “Bharat”.
Regarding claim 3, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 2 [see rejection of claim 2 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe.
Bharat, directed towards optimization of parameters of a probe [see abstract of Bharat] further discloses that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe. [see FIG. 1; the probe and the controller are together; [0031]-[0032] also discloses that the controller is part of the probe]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe according to the teachings of Bharat in order to provide an independent controller for faster operation of the probe [see [0031] of Bharat]
Regarding claim 10, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 9 [see rejection of claim 9 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe.
Bharat further discloses that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe. [see FIG. 1; the probe and the controller are together; [0031]-[0032] also discloses that the controller is part of the probe]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe according to the teachings of Bharat in order to provide an independent controller for faster operation of the probe [see [0031] of Bharat]
Regarding claim 17, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe.
Bharat further discloses that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe. [see FIG. 1; the probe and the controller are together; [0031]-[0032] also discloses that the controller is part of the probe]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the controller is implemented in the ultrasound probe according to the teachings of Bharat in order to provide an independent controller for faster operation of the probe [see [0031] of Bharat]
Claims 4, 11, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0305441) hereinafter “Lin” hereinafter “Lin” in view of Halmann et al. (WO 2018/063811) hereinafter “Halmann” and Naidu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0353260) hereinafter “Naidu”.
Regarding claim 4, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose wherein the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the first image at the first combination of settings and in the second image at the second combination of setting; and wherein the first combinations of settings and the second combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth.
Halmann, directed towards optimization of ultrasound images [see abstract of Halmann] further discloses wherein the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the first image at the first combination of settings and in the second image at the second combination of setting [see [0055]; the parameters are changed in order to make the B-line optimized (as the feature manifested)]
Naidu, directed towards automatic optimization of imaging parameters [see abstract of Naidu] further discloses that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth. [see [0025] and [0036] of Naidu]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the image at each of the combination of setting according to the teachings of Halmann in order to automatically enhance visualization of B-lines for review and diagnosis by an operator. [see [0006] of Halmann]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth according to the teachings of Naidu in order to provide assistance in the time of emergency to help the operator choose the correct parameters [see [0003] of Naidu]
Regarding claim 11, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Lin does not expressly discloses that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth.
Halmann, directed towards optimization of ultrasound images [see abstract of Halmann] further discloses wherein the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the image at each of the combination of setting [see [0055]; the parameters are changed in order to make the B-line optimized (as the feature manifested)]
Naidu further discloses that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth. [[see [0025] and [0036] of Naidu]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the image at each of the combination of setting according to the teachings of Halmann in order to automatically enhance visualization of B-lines for review and diagnosis by an operator. [see [0006] of Halmann]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Tsymbalenko further such that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth according to the teachings of Naidu in order to provide assistance in the time of emergency to help the operator choose the correct parameters [see [0003] of Naidu]
Regarding claim 18, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16 above]
Lin does not expressly discloses that the first combinations and the second combination of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth.
Halmann, directed towards optimization of ultrasound images [see abstract of Halmann] further discloses wherein the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the image at each of the combination of setting [see [0055]; the parameters are changed in order to make the B-line optimized (as the feature manifested)]
Naidu further discloses that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth. [[see [0025] and [0036] of Naidu]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the at least one feature in at least one B-line manifested in the image at each of the combination of setting according to the teachings of Halmann in order to automatically enhance visualization of B-lines for review and diagnosis by an operator. [see [0006] of Halmann]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Tsymbalenko further such that the combinations of settings include a first setting for image depth, a second setting for harmonics, a third setting for a gain as a function of image depth, and a fourth setting for focal depth according to the teachings of Naidu in order to provide assistance in the time of emergency to help the operator choose the correct parameters [see [0003] of Naidu]
Claims 5, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0305441) hereinafter “Lin” hereinafter “Lin” in view of Halmann et al. (WO 2018/063811) hereinafter “Halmann” and Naidu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0353260) hereinafter “Naidu”
Regarding claim 5, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Lin does not expressly discloses that the display is configured to simultaneously display a first image based on feedback from a first combination of settings and a second image based on feedback from a second combination of settings.
Naidu further discloses that the display is configured to simultaneously display a first image based on feedback from a first combination of settings and a second image based on feedback from a second combination of settings [see FIG. 12C and [0025] of Naidu]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the display is configured to simultaneously display a first image based on feedback from a first combination of settings and a second image based on feedback from a second combination of settings according to the teachings of Naidu in order to provide assistance in the time of emergency to help the operator choose the correct parameters [see [0003] of Naidu]
Regarding claim 12, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Lin does not expressly discloses that the display is configured to simultaneously display the first image and the second image.
Naidu further discloses that the display is configured to simultaneously display the first image and the second image [see FIG. 12C and [0025] of Naidu]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the display is configured to simultaneously display the first image and the second image according to the teachings of Naidu in order to provide assistance in the time of emergency to help the operator choose the correct parameters [see [0003] of Naidu]
Regarding claim 15, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Lin does not expressly discloses that setting a default combination of settings based on selections of images generated from automatically progressing through the plurality of combinations of settings.
Naidu further discloses setting a default combination of settings based on selections of images generated from automatically progressing through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see [0026]-[0027] of Naidu]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that it includes setting a default combination of settings based on selections of images generated from automatically progressing through the plurality of combinations of settings according to the teachings of Naidu in order to provide assistance in the time of emergency to help the operator choose the correct parameters [see [0003] of Naidu]
Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2010/0305441) hereinafter “Lin” hereinafter “Lin” in view of Tsymbalenko et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0160981) hereinafter “Tsymbalenko”.
Regarding claim 7, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose that the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting
Tsymbalenko further discloses the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko; [0057] further disclose that a range of parameter such as the frame rate can be changed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting according to the teachings of Tsymbalenko in order to provide a continuous optimization as the imaging goes on [see [0003] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 14, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose that the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting
Tsymbalenko further discloses the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko; [0057] further disclose that a range of parameter such as the frame rate can be changed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting according to the teachings of Tsymbalenko in order to provide a continuous optimization as the imaging goes on [see [0003] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 20, Lin discloses all the limitations of claim 19 [see rejection of claim 19 above]
Lin does not expressly disclose that single progression through the plurality of combinations of settings is performed at each of a plurality of positions of the ultrasound probe.
Tsymbalenko further discloses the ultrasound system is configured to single progression through the plurality of combinations of settings is performed at each of a plurality of positions of the ultrasound probe. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko; [0057] further disclose that a range of parameter such as the frame rate can be changed]
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill level in the art at the time of the filing of the invention to modify the design of Lin further such that the ultrasound system is configured to single progression through the plurality of combinations of settings is performed at each of a plurality of positions of the ultrasound probe. according to the teachings of Tsymbalenko in order to provide a continuous optimization as the imaging goes on [see [0003] of Tsymbalenko]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/05/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections of Claims under U.S.C. 112(b)
The rejection of claims for being indefinite has been withdrawn in view of amendments to the claims.
Rejections of Claims under U.S.C. 102(a)(1)
With regards to the anticipatory rejection of independent claims 1 in view of Lin reference, the applicant has argued that Lin does not disclose a “quantifying at least one feature manifested in an image” because the quality metric of Lin which has been taken by the examiner to be equivalent of the “at least one feature manifested in an image” is a cost function and is not shown/manifested in the image.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that the quality metric of Lin defined as “a weighted sum of multiple quality factors including spatial resolution, signal to noise ratio, frame rate, penetration depth , and image artifacts” as disclosed in [0021] of Lin. Any of these features qualify as a manifested feature in the image, and each of them are quantified in order to calculate the quality metric. Therefore, at least one feature calculated comprises of the plurality of manifested features corresponding to the quality metric and quality metric represents all the plurality of manifested parameters since for calculation of the quality metric, each of the features have to be quantified. The claim does not require that each of the plurality of these manifested features have to be individually tracked across multiple images, therefore, Lin reads on the language of the claim as it is currently stated. The applicant is advised to use more precise language to distinguish claims from Lin.
Rejections of Claims under U.S.C. 103
Regarding dependent claim 4, the applicant has argued that claim 4 requires the feature to be B-line manifested in the image and since B-line is not similar to the quality metric of in, the combination is not reasonable.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that claims require at least one feature, meaning there can be more than one feature that is quantified. Since the quality metric of Lin is comprised of a plurality of parameters which are each being quantified, addition of another parameter to the combination is neither unreasonable or improper. Therefore, applicant’s argument regarding the combination of Lin and secondary reference Halman is not persuasive.
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 MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
