Detailed Action
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 2 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Azuma in view of Pesque and Proulx. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/05/2026 and 07/06/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 07/09/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 01/09/2026.
The applicant submitted a terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 9668714, 11172911, and 12186133 on 07/09/2026, and the terminal disclaimer is acknowledged and approved; thus, the Double Patenting Rejection is withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma et al. (US 20090301199 A1, published December 10, 2009) in view of Pesque et al. (US 5669385 A, published September 23, 1997) and Proulx et al. (US 20070167752 A1, published July 19, 2007), hereinafter referred to as Azuma, Pesque, and Proulx, respectively.
Regarding claim 2, Azuma teaches an ultrasound imaging system (Fig. 8), comprising:
a plurality of transmit apertures configured to each transmit ultrasound signals into a region of interest (Fig. 8, selecting transducers 101 via transmit/receive selector 205 as transmit apertures; see para. 0031 – “…ultrasound is transmitted from the electro-acoustic transducer 101 to a subject (not shown).”);
one or more receive apertures configured to receive echoes of the ultrasound signals (Fig. 8, selecting transducers 101 via transmit/receive selector 205 as receive apertures; see para. 0031 – “A part of the ultrasound reflected by a scatterer in the subject is received by the electro-acoustic transducer 101.”);
a controller (Fig. 8, includes transmit beamformer 204 and receive beamformer 206 as controller) configured to determine, for each transmitted ultrasound signal, an elapsed time between a transmit time of transmitting the ultrasound signal into the region of interest and a receive time of receiving echoes returned by reflectors in the region of interest (see para. 0031 – “The transmit and receive sequence controller 201 then controls a receive beamformer 206 to start a receive mode after a predetermined elapsed time from a timing of the transmission…The receive beamformer 206 continuously controls the delay and weighting function in accordance with an arrival time of the reflected ultrasound, the control being called dynamic focus. Data after the dynamic focus is converted into an image signal...”);
the controller being further configured to analyze patterns of the elapsed time for each transmit aperture to determine a degree of blockage of each of the plurality of transmit apertures, and apply weighting factors to each of the plurality of transmit apertures proportional to the degree of blockage determined for each transmit aperture (see para. 0031 – “The transmit and receive sequence controller 201 then controls a receive beamformer 206 to start a receive mode after a predetermined elapsed time from a timing of the transmission…The receive beamformer 206 continuously controls the delay and weighting function in accordance with an arrival time of the reflected ultrasound, the control being called dynamic focus. Data after the dynamic focus is converted into an image signal....” inherent to apply a weighting to apertures based on degree of blockage (i.e., no bone blocking signal reaching tissue, so signal has a longer elapsed time and less intensity; bone blocking signal reaching tissue, so signal has a shorter elapsed time and more intensity due to bone reflection)).
Azuma teaches weighting ultrasound signals based on elapsed time, and it would be inherent to weight ultrasound signals based on intensity of the signal, but does not explicitly teach weighting the ultrasound signals based on intensity.
Whereas, Pesque, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches determining and analyze patterns of intensity values for the received echoes, and apply weighting factors proportional to the intensity values (see col. 5, lines 64-67 – “The Doppler velocity [intensity] estimate for the same sample volume is applied to the velocity decision processor 28 which similarly produces a coefficient CV between zero and one (where "one" is at the 100% level in FIG. 7) [weighting factor] in accordance with the transfer characteristic curve of the velocity decision processor.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified weighting ultrasound signals based on elapsed time, as disclosed in Azuma, by also weighting the ultrasound signals based on intensity, as disclosed in Pesque. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to discriminate of blood flow and moving tissue Doppler signals, as taught in Pesque (see col. 5, lines 50-53).
Azuma in view of Pesque teaches transmitting and receiving ultrasound signals, but does not explicitly teach where the ultrasound signals are unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals.
Whereas, Proulx, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches transmitting and receiving unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals (see para. 0023 – “The transmit elements produce a generally unfocused or weakly focused sound field, broadly illuminating a region of interest. By locating the transmit elements at different locations, sequential broad wavefronts propagate through the region of interest at different angles. The returning echoes are received by the receive array.”; see para. 0055 – “The broad wavefront is a plane wave, a diverging (spherical or cylindrical) wave or weakly focused. Omni-directional transducers may be used. Transmit elements 12 which are small as compared to wavelength generate hemispherical waves.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified transmitting and receiving ultrasound signals, as disclosed in Azuma in view of Pesque, by having the ultrasound signals as unfocused circular wave front ultrasound signals, as disclosed in Proulx. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to output higher output pressures and emulate a virtual point source for synthesis, as taught in Proulx (see para. 0055).
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma in view of Pesque and Proulx, as applied to claim 2 above, and in further view of Washburn et al. (US 20060030776 A1, published February 9, 2006), hereinafter referred to as Washburn.
Regarding claim 3, Azuma in view of Pesque and Proulx teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 2 above.
Azuma in view of Pesque and Proulx teaches weighing ultrasound signals based on elapsed time and intensity, and it would be inherent to apply a weighting factor of 1 to unblocked apertures (no bone blocking signal reaching tissue, so signal has a longer elapsed time and less intensity), but does not explicitly teach applying a weighting factor of 1 to any transmit apertures that are unblocked.
Whereas, Washburn, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured to apply a weighting factor of 1 to any transmit apertures that are unblocked (see para. 0038 – “In this way, curve 230 of FIG. 2A can result in image processor 130 applying a smaller factor to image data 125 received from ultrasound beams 112 with smaller focal depths. Conversely, curve 230 of FIG. 2A can result in image processor 130 applying a larger factor to image data 125 received from ultrasound beams 112 with larger focal depths.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified weighing ultrasound signals based on elapsed time and intensity, as disclosed in Azuma in view of Pesque and Proulx, by apply a weighting factor of 1 to any transmit apertures that are unblocked, as disclosed in Washburn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to result in a more uniform image, as taught in Washburn (see para. 0038).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Washburn further teaches wherein the controller is configured to apply a weighting factor of 0 to any transmit apertures that are completely blocked (see para. 0038 – “In this way, curve 230 of FIG. 2A can result in image processor 130 applying a smaller factor to image data 125 received from ultrasound beams 112 with smaller focal depths. Conversely, curve 230 of FIG. 2A can result in image processor 130 applying a larger factor to image data 125 received from ultrasound beams 112 with larger focal depths.” bone completely blocking signal reaching tissue, so signal has a shorter elapsed time and more intensity).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Washburn further teaches wherein the controller is configured to apply a weighting factor between 0 and 1 to transmit apertures that are partially blocked (see para. 0038 – “In this way, curve 230 of FIG. 2A can result in image processor 130 applying a smaller factor to image data 125 received from ultrasound beams 112 with smaller focal depths. Conversely, curve 230 of FIG. 2A can result in image processor 130 applying a larger factor to image data 125 received from ultrasound beams 112 with larger focal depths.” Partial blocking of signal reaching tissue, so signal has an in-between elapsed time and in-between intensity).
The motivation for claims 4-5 was shown previously in claim 3.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Osumi (US 20120108973 A1, published May 3, 2012 with a priority date of October 31, 2011) discloses when a processing target pixel is set to a high brightness region, the weight coefficient ETH increases from 0 to 1, and the weight coefficient (1-ETH) linearly decreases from 1 to 0 as the brightness value of the processing target pixel increases.
Visser et al. (US 20120224456 A1, published September 6, 2012 with a priority date of March 3, 2011) discloses the relative weighting is based on a difference between the times of flight of the first and second ultrasonic signals to the first detector.
Hara et al. (US 5640959 A, published June 24, 1997) discloses preventing deterioration of an image by reducing an influence of reflection of the ultrasonic waves from the ribs, and forming a good image improved in resolution.
Umemura et al. (US 20080027318 A1, published January 31, 2008) discloses the transmission means generates an ultrasonic pulse signal having at least four peaks with substantially equal transmission intensity in the azimuth direction per transmission beam by weighting the transmission aperture of the ultrasonic element array.
Burcher et al. (US 20090069693 A1, published March 12, 2009) discloses groups of the received signals are weighted and coherently combined, which effects a retrospective apodization and steering of the transmit beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights