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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of invention I, species A5, B3, and C3, in the reply filed on 04/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 4-7 and 10-18 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected species A1, B2, C1, C2 and invention II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/23/2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim recites
“an ultrasound imaging transducer that produces…;
a base system that processes…;
a cable assembly that communicates…; and
an electronic cable driver at the imaging transducer constructed and arranged to…,
an amplifier at the base system to amplify…” should be amended to recite
“an ultrasound imaging transducer configured to
a base system configured to
a cable assembly configured to
wherein the imaging transducer includes an electronic cable driver
wherein the base system includes an amplifier at configured . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a base system” in claims 1, 8, and 9, which is described in the specification in [0064], FIG. 1A, as including an electronic box 104 containing analog front end consisting of a number, typically 128 to 256, of analog to digital convertors. Data from the convertors is processed to form an image and displayed on display 101. A control panel 102 allows a user to control the system;
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “a base system” in lines 4, 6, 8, and 10-11, which support can be found for a prior art example illustrated as an analog interface embodiment (see [0063], [0064], FIG. 1A), but support could not be found for the combination of the analog embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1A being used in combination with the elected embodiment shown using digital signal transmission (see [0106]-[0115], FIG. 4).
Additionally, as claim 1 sets forth the 112(f)-invoking term “base system”. A claim with a term that invokes 112(f) is interpreted as requiring the structure disclosed in the specification as corresponding to that term. In the present application, there is no disclosure of any corresponding structure. The “base system” is described as including an electronic box (see [0064], [0066) which is described as containing electronics (see [0069]) and is only shown as black box 104 in figure 1A. It is described in the specification only in terms of the function it performs. It appears, though it is not clear, that applicant intends for the limitation to be interpreted as a computer-implement function. Therefore, is not clear from the disclosure if applicant meant that the “base system” which performs the “process[ing] [of] the digitized echo data” and the “further processing” of the “received digitized echo data “at the “amplified voltage” is only software (in which case it cannot invoke 112f), or conversely is hardware only, or if it is a combination of hardware and software. No algorithm is provided for performing all the claimed functions, which is required when invoking 112(f) for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. Further, the lack of corresponding structure (including an algorithm, if the limitations are computer-implemented) results in a lack of evidence that Applicant was in possession of the invention as claimed at the time of filing. The claim fails to comply with the written description requirement for this reason.
Claims 8-9 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
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 1-3 and 8-9 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.
Claim 1 sets forth the 112(f)-invoking term “base system”. A claim with a term that invokes 112(f) is interpreted as requiring the structure disclosed in the specification as corresponding to that term. In the present application, there is no disclosure of any corresponding structure. The “base system” is described as including an electronic box (see [0064], [0066) which is described as containing electronics (see [0069]) and is only shown as black box 104 in figure 1A. It is described in the specification only in terms of the function it performs. It appears, though it is not clear, that applicant intends for the limitation to be interpreted as a computer-implement function. Therefore, is not clear from the disclosure if applicant meant that the “base system” which performs the “process[ing] [of] the digitized echo data” and the “further processing” of the “received digitized echo data “at the “amplified voltage” is only software (in which case it cannot invoke 112f), or conversely is hardware only, or if it is a combination of hardware and software. No algorithm is provided for performing all the claimed functions, which is required when invoking 112(f) for computer-implemented means-plus-function limitations. Consequently, not only is it unclear if 112(f) can be/is being invoked, but it is also impossible to determine the scope of the claim because of the lack of disclosure of corresponding structure.
The term “about” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The reduced voltage and the transmitting of the digitized echo data from the transducer to the base system at the reduced voltage has been rendered indefinite by the use of the term “about”.
Claims 2-3 and 8-9 are also rejected for reciting the same and/or limitations outlined above.
All dependent claims are also rejected by the nature of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US20220233174), in view of Savord (US20210007717)
Regarding claim 1, Hwang discloses an ultrasound imaging system (abstract, the ultrasound device), comprising:
an ultrasound imaging transducer that produces digitized echo data in response to the transmission of acoustic energy ([0120]-[0126], FIG. 3, transducer 3360);
a base system that processes the digitized echo data ([0120]-[0126], FIG. 3, the base system 3306 including the digital receive circuitry 3376 includes multiple different circuitry including image formation circuitry configured to process and perform image analysis on the digitized echo data);
a cable assembly that communicates the digitized echo data between the transducer and the base system ([0123], FIG. 3, the communication link/cable 3350);
an electronic cable driver at the imaging transducer constructed and arranged to transmit the digitized echo data ([0120]-[0124], FIG. 3, the pulser transmits the digitized echo data/electronic signals) at a rate greater than about 1 Gbs from the transducer to the base system over the cable assembly at a reduced voltage ([0120]-[0124], FIG. 3, the digitized echo data/electronic signals are output via the serial digital stream at a high-speed, e.g., 2-5 gigabits/second or more); and
wherein the reduced voltage is about 300mV peak to peak or less ([0099]-[0115], table 1, see values for the minimum total voltage disturbance value, the maximum total voltage disturbance value, the difference between the effort mentioned to values, and the average total voltage disturbance value in millivolts. As it is known in the physical arts that the peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) value can be obtained by multiplying the average voltage value by 3.14159, it is understood by one of the art that the reduced voltage is less than 300 mV).
While Hwang discloses an amplifier at the base system which is a power amplifier ([0139]) and the receive circuitry within the transducer as having one or more analog amplifiers (see [0122]), but does not explicitly disclose an amplifier at the base system to amplify received digitized echo data from the reduced voltage to an amplified voltage suitable for further processing at the base system.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Savord teaches an amplifier at the base system to amplify received digitized echo data from the reduced voltage to an amplified voltage suitable for further processing at the base system ([0060]-[0065], FIG. 5, CML components 536 include a differential voltage to current converters that amplify each bit after the 0-to-1 bit transitions).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system disclosed by Hwang with the amplifier at the base system to amplify received digitized echo data from the reduced voltage to an amplified voltage suitable for further processing at the base system as taught by Savord in order to provide the necessary transfer rate over the communication link ([0007] of Savord).
Regarding claim 2, Hwang substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Hwang discloses wherein the reduced voltage is about 200mV peak to peak or less ([0099]-[0115], table 1, see values for the minimum total voltage disturbance value, the maximum total voltage disturbance value, the difference between the effort mentioned to values, and the average total voltage disturbance value in millivolts. As it is known in the physical arts that the peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) value can be obtained by multiplying the average voltage value by 3.14159, it is understood by one of the art that the reduced voltage is less than 200 mV).
Regarding claim 3, Hwang substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, specifically, Hwang discloses wherein the reduced voltage is about 150mV peak to peak or less ([0099]-[0115], table 1, see values for the minimum total voltage disturbance value, the maximum total voltage disturbance value, the difference between the effort mentioned to values, and the average total voltage disturbance value in millivolts. As it is known in the physical arts that the peak-to-peak voltage (Vpp) value can be obtained by multiplying the average voltage value by 3.14159, it is understood by one of the art that the reduced voltage is less than 150 mV).
Claim(s) 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang, in view of Savord, as applied to claim one above, further in view of Savord et al. (WO2024126286, hereafter “Savord ‘6286”)
Regarding claim 8, Hwang substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, does not explicitly disclose wherein the digitized echo data is communicated from the transducer to the base system in a single-ended communication protocol.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Savord ‘6286 teaches the digitized echo data is communicated from the transducer to the base system in a single-ended communication protocol (see abstract, title, [0017] the transmission of signals uses single ended communication protocol).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system disclosed by Hwang with the digitized echo data is communicated from the transducer to the base system in a single-ended communication protocol as taught by Savord ‘6286 in order to provide for the overall diameter of the probe cable to be reduced and the flexibility to be increased ([0017] of Savord ‘6286).
Regarding claim 9, Hwang substantially discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention, does not explicitly disclose wherein the digitized echo data is communicated from the transducer to the base system in a DC coupled communication protocol.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Savord ‘6286 teaches wherein the digitized echo data is communicated from the transducer to the base system in a DC coupled communication protocol ([0027] the DC biasing is preserved in the AC coupling within the communications interface for the communications protocol).
It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ultrasound imaging system disclosed by Hwang with wherein the digitized echo data is communicated from the transducer to the base system in a DC coupled communication protocol as taught by Savord ‘6286 in order to obtain a threshold centered with respect to the digital echo data streams ([0027] of Savord ‘6286).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMY SHAFQAT whose telephone number is (571)272-4054. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-5:30PM MST.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (571) 270-1790. 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.
/A.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights