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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/21/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 03/27/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, 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 § 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 are 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.
Claims 1, 8, and 16 recite the limitation "the combinations of settings" in line before last. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is not clear what is the relationship between the term “the combinations of settings” and “a plurality of combinations of settings” recited earlier in the claims. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claims are not clear and the claims are considered to be indefinite.
Claims 6, and 13 recite the limitation “during a single progression”. This time range is considered to be indefinite and unclear as it is up to the subjective interpretation of the reader what would be considered a single progression. Is a progression of imaging an organ is a single progression? Is going through a setting considered a single progression? Or something else is intended. As a result, the metes and bounds of the claims are not clear and claims are considered to be indefinite. For the purposes of examination, the broadest reasonable interpretation has been used.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17-20 depend upon indefinite claims 1, 8, and 16 and are considered to be indefinite due to their dependency upon indefinite base claims.
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 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 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 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. [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. [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 image at each of the combination of setting; and 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, 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 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]
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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 4, 8, 11, 16, and 18 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.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
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
Prosecution Insights