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 01/02/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner. None of the claims 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, 6-9, 13, 14, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsymbalenko et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0160981) hereinafter “Tsymbalenko”.
Regarding claim 1, Tsymbalenko discloses an ultrasound system [see abstract of Tsymbalenko; setup 100 and FIG. 1], comprising:
an ultrasound probe [FIG. 1, probe 112 and [0031] of Tsymbalenko] that transmits ultrasound imaging beams [see [0031] of Tsymbalenko] in accordance with combinations of settings; [[0012], it is inherent that any ultrasound probe has to work based on a combination of parameter settings]
a display [display 116; see [0031] Tsymbalenko] that displays images [see [0032] of Tsymbalenko] based on feedback generated from the ultrasound imaging beams; and [see [0031]-[0032]; the images are produced based on returned beams]
an ultrasound base [see FIG. 1; control unit 114] interfaced with the ultrasound probe [probe 112; see FIG. 1] and the display [display 116], wherein the ultrasound system [set-up 100] is configured to automatically progress through a plurality of combinations of settings for transmitting the ultrasound imaging beams. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko; the system goes through different combinations parameters and setting based on automatic recognition of scanned anatomy]
Regarding claim 2, Tsymbalenko further discloses a controller [control unit 114; see FIG. 1] comprising a memory [see [0017] of Tsymbalenko] and that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions [see [0017]], wherein the controller is configured to execute the instructions to control the ultrasound probe to transmit ultrasound imaging beams by automatically progressing through the plurality of combinations of settings. [see [0032] and [0035]-[0036] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 6, Tsymbalenko further discloses the ultrasound system is configured to adaptively update the plurality of combinations of settings during a single progression. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko discloses that “advanced adaptive processing techniques may be used to enable automatically identifying and recognizing anatomical features and then automatically switch imaging parameters that are most optimal for the image quality for recognized anatomical feature”]
Regarding claim 7, 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]
Regarding claim 8, Tsymbalenko discloses a method of operation for an ultrasound system, [see abstract of Tsymbalenko] the method comprising:
transmitting, by an ultrasound probe, [FIG. 1, probe 112 and [0031] of Tsymbalenko] a first ultrasound imaging beam [see [0031] of Tsymbalenko] in accordance with a first combination of settings; [it is inherent that any ultrasound probe has to work based on a combination of parameter settings]
displaying, [see [0032] of Tsymbalenko] by a display, [display 116; see [0031] Tsymbalenko] a first image based on feedback generated from the first ultrasound imaging beam; [see [0031]-[0032]; the images are produced based on returned beams]
transmitting, by the ultrasound probe, a second ultrasound imaging beam in accordance with a second combination of settings; [see [0036]; as the imaged anatomy changes, the parameter combination changes accordingly causing imaging with a second set of settings]
displaying, by a display, a second image based on feedback generated from the second ultrasound imaging beam; and [see [0031]-[0032]; the images are produced based on returned beams]
automatically progressing through a plurality of combinations of settings including the first combination of settings and the second combination of settings. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko; the system goes through different combinations parameters and setting based on automatic recognition of scanned anatomy]
Regarding claim 9, Tsymbalenko further discloses executing, by a controller [control unit 114; see FIG. 1] comprising a memory [see [0017] of Tsymbalenko] that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions [see [0017]], the instructions to control the ultrasound probe to transmit ultrasound imaging beams by automatically progressing through a plurality of combinations of settings including the first combination of settings and the second combination of settings. [see [0032] and [0035]-[0036] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 13, Tsymbalenko further discloses adaptively updating the plurality of combinations of settings during a single progression. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 14, Tsymbalenko further discloses adaptively updating a range of parameter values for each parameter in at least one setting. [see [0036] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 16, Tsymbalenko further discloses a controller [control unit 114; see FIG. 1] comprising a memory [see [0017] of Tsymbalenko] and that stores instructions and a processor that executes the instructions [see [0017]], wherein, when executed by the processor, the instructions cause the controller to:
control transmission, beam [see [0031] of Tsymbalenko] by an ultrasound probe, [FIG. 1, probe 112 and [0031] of Tsymbalenko] of a first ultrasound imaging beam in accordance with a first combination of settings in an automated progression; [it is inherent that any ultrasound probe has to work based on a combination of parameter settings]
control display [see [0032] of Tsymbalenko] by a display, [display 116; see [0031] Tsymbalenko] of a first image based on feedback generated from the first ultrasound imaging beam; [see [0031]-[0032]; the images are produced based on returned beams]
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 [0036]; as the imaged anatomy changes, the parameter combination changes accordingly causing imaging with a second set of settings]
control display, by the display, of a second image based on feedback generated from the second ultrasound imaging beam; and [see [0031]-[0032]; the images are produced based on returned beams]
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 [0036] of Tsymbalenko; the system goes through different combinations parameters and setting based on automatic recognition of scanned anatomy]
Regarding claim 19, Tsymbalenko 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 [0036] of Tsymbalenko]
Regarding claim 20, t Tsymbalenko further discloses he 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; the imaging is performed for different anatomical features which are at different locations in the body]
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 Tsymbalenko et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0160981) hereinafter “Tsymbalenko” in view of Bharat et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0271577) hereinafter “Bharat”.
Regarding claim 3, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 2 [see rejection of claim 2 above]
Tsymbalenko 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 Tsymbalenko 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, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 9 [see rejection of claim 9 above]
Tsymbalenko 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 Tsymbalenko 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, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16 above]
Tsymbalenko 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 Tsymbalenko 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, 5, 11, 12, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsymbalenko et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2018/0160981) hereinafter “Tsymbalenko” in view of Naidu et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0353260) hereinafter “Naidu”.
Regarding claim 4, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Tsymbalenko 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.
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 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 5, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 1 [see rejection of claim 1 above]
Tsymbalenko 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 Tsymbalenko 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 11, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Tsymbalenko 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.
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 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 12, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Tsymbalenko 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 Tsymbalenko 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, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 8 [see rejection of claim 8 above]
Tsymbalenko 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 Tsymbalenko 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]
Regarding claim 18, Tsymbalenko discloses all the limitations of claim 16 [see rejection of claim 16 above]
Tsymbalenko 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.
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 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]
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
U.S.C. 112(b) rejection of claim 20
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 01/02/2026, with respect to rejection of claim 20 under U.S.C. 112(b) for being indefinite have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejection of claim 20 has been withdrawn.
Claims 1, 9, and 16
With regards to the rejection of claim 1 under U.S.C. 102 in view of Tsymbalenko, the applicant has argued that the prior art used in the rejection simply discloses automatic recognition of scanned anatomy and does not disclose automatic progression through a plurality of combinations of ultrasound settings.
In response, the examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that [0036] not only discloses automatic recognition of anatomy, but also expressly discloses: “the imaging parameters and settings selection may be done automatically and continually based on automatic recognition of scanned anatomy”; and “Once the anatomical features are recognized the system can automatically switch and use the imaging parameters and / or setting most optimal for obtain the best image quality scan for recognized anatomical features”. Therefore, claim expressly discloses progressing through a plurality of settings based on the recognition of the anatomy.
The applicant further argues that Tsymbalenko does not show progression through a combination of settings because the optimal settings are known once the anatomical feature is identified.
The examiner respectfully notes that the claim merely requires “automatically progress through a plurality of combinations of settings”. It does not specify that there should not be any intervening step (such as the identification of anatomical feature). Therefore, absent any such limitations, the prior art reads on the language of the claim.
Claims 4-7, and 11-14
The applicant has argued that Tsymbalenko does not invite any alteration which would include multiple settings as in claims 4 and 11.
The examiner respectfully disagrees and notes that Tsymbalenko explicitly indicates that the settings include various parameters. [0036] of Tsymbalenko for example uses the term “imaging parameters” in plural. [0018] for example discloses “one or more imaging parameters or settings for optimizing imaging quality for the identified anatomical feature”. There is no mention of excluding more than one setting or parameter in Tsymbalenko reference. As a result, applicant’s argument against the combination of references is not considered persuasive.
The applicant has further argued that Tsymbalenko does not invite any modification to include simultaneously displaying different images because Tsymbalenko is optimizing what is shown to a sonographer and tries not to detract from it.
The examiner respectfully notes that this statement is purely based on speculation. There is no evidence in Tsymbalenko that it teaches away from displaying two different images. Further, even by using the same logic as the applicant, if Tsymbalenko is trying to optimize what is being shown to a sonographer, it can optimize two images that are simultaneously being shown to the sonographer as well. Therefore, applicant’s arguments regarding Tsymbalenko teaching away from such combination is not persuasive.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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