DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 01/05/2026 concerning application no. 18/992,165 filed on 01/07/2025.
Claims 1-20 are pending (Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration).
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 Group I (Claims 1) in the reply filed on 01/05/2026 is acknowledged.
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 2-4 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 2 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the one or more lens layers comprise a plurality of groups”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the groups are a collection of. The continuing element recites “and lens elements within each group of the plurality of groups are of the same type”. It is unclear it the groups is referring to groups of lens elements or some other element.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 4 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the plurality of groups”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “wherein the plurality of groups include at least a first group and a second group”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the groups are a collection of.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 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 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ishrak et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,962).
Regarding claim 1, Ishrak teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system comprising:
an ultrasound transducer comprising a transducer array having a plurality of transducer elements defining an element layer, the plurality of transducer elements being configured to emit ultrasound signals (Col. 11, lines 56-58, teach Fig. 8 shows a block diagram of circuitry which may be used in conjunction with any of the sparse transducer arrays of Fig. 4a-6e. See Fig. 5A, Fig. 8. Abstract teaches the plurality of transducer elements are arranged in an array into columns and rows. Elements 510, 512, 514 define an element layer. Col. 9, lines 30-39 teaches as each transducer element is activated, the energy is then focused by compound lens 503 according to the portion of the lens to which the transducer element(s) are affixed. Thus, when element 510 is activated, the energy generated is focused by the portion 511 of lens 503, causing the focusing of the energy at focal zone (the near-field) A shown in FIG. 5b. Likewise, when elements 512 and 514 are activated via channel 552, the portions 513 and 515 of lens 503 cause the ultrasonic burst to be focused at focal zone B (the far-field) shown in FIG. 5b. The wavefront is shown as 530 in FIG. 5b); and
one or more lens layers positioned over the element layer, the one or more lens layers comprising a plurality of lens elements that correspond, respectively, with the plurality of transducer elements (Col. 9, lines 22-24 teach a compound lens 503 is affixed to the sparse transducer array shown as elements 501 using an epoxy or other similar adhesive medium 502. Lens portions 511, 513, 515 correspond, respectively, with elements 510, 512, 514. See Fig. 5A),
wherein the one or more lens layers are configured to affect a time delay of at least some of the signals emitted by the transducer elements (Col. 9, lines 22-24 teach a compound lens 503 is affixed to the sparse transducer array. Lens portions 511, 513, 515 have different thicknesses and thus affect time delays of signals emitted by the elements 510, 512, 514. Col. 2, lines 60- Col. 3, lines 31 attribute the delay according to lens dimensions).
Regarding claim 2, Ishrak teaches the a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ishrak further teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the one or more lens layers comprise a plurality of groups, and lens elements within each group of the plurality of groups are of the same type (Fig. 5A shows lens portions 511, 513, 515 that define an element layer that correspond to the respective elements that they are above. Each of the portions are shown to have multiple portions as seen in Fig. 5A).
Regarding claim 3, Ishrak teaches the a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 2, as discussed above.
Ishrak further teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein different lens layers with the different ones of the plurality of groups have different lens thicknesses (Figs. 5A-5B lens portions are shown to have differing thickness across the differing groups).
Regarding claim 5, Ishrak teaches the a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ishrak further teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the one or more lens layers are configured to be coupled to the ultrasound transducer of the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system (Col. 9, lines 22-24 teach a compound lens 503 is affixed to the sparse transducer array shown as elements 501 using an epoxy or other similar adhesive medium 502. Lens portions 511, 513, 515 correspond, respectively, with elements 510, 512, 514. See Fig. 5A).
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 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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishrak et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,962) in view of Brown et al. (PGPUB No. US 2018/0246207).
Regarding claim 4, Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the plurality of groups include at least a first group and a second group, and the one or more lens layers in the first group provide a first time delay of ultrasound signals emitted by corresponding ones of transducer elements, and the one or more lens layers in the second group provide a second time delay to ultrasound signals emitted by corresponding ones of transducer elements, and the first time delay is different from the second time delay.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Brown teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the plurality of groups include at least a first group and a second group, and the one or more lens layers in the first group provide a first time delay of ultrasound signals emitted by corresponding ones of transducer elements, and the one or more lens layers in the second group provide a second time delay to ultrasound signals emitted by corresponding ones of transducer elements, and the first time delay is different from the second time delay (Paragraph 0003 teaches the use of a Fresnel lens with the ultrasound device. Paragraph 0084 teaches that the Fresnel lens results in the differing sub-apertures that require varying delay mediation to provide similar and equal effective path length. See Fig. 5 that shows the path length with respect to the Fresnel pattern that is used).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishrak with Brown’s teaching of varying delay to account for the lens thickness. This modified apparatus would allow the user to image efficiently and use a good approach for passive ultrasound focusing (Paragraph 0003 of Brown). Furthermore, the modification corrects for the beamforming errors otherwise inherent in the Fresnel approach (Paragraph 0085 of Brown).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishrak et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,962) in view of Chiang et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0009739).
Regarding claim 6, Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 5, as discussed above.
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the one or more lens layers are coupled to the ultrasound transducer at a first spacing relative to the transducer array, and the first spacing is adjustable.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Chiang teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the one or more lens layers are coupled to the ultrasound transducer at a first spacing relative to the transducer array, and the first spacing is adjustable (Paragraph 0021 teaches the use of an adjustable acoustic conformable lens).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishrak with Chiang’s teaching of an adjustable lens. This modified apparatus would allow the user to scan an image plane using a steerable beamformer system (Paragraph 0022 of Chiang). Furthermore, the modification provides improvements in ultrasound imaging technologies enabling improved real-time three-dimensional imaging capability. In addition, this improved capability should support continuous real-time display for a fourth dimensional 4D function (Paragraph 0002 of Chiang).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishrak et al. (US Patent No. 5,922,962) in view of Rodriguez-Molares et al. ("Sequential CPWC: From ultrafast to ultralight", 2017).
Regarding claim 7, Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of receive elements of the transducer array is reduced by a channel reduction factor and wherein the channel reduction factor is 8/5 or greater.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Rodriguez-Molares teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of receive elements of the transducer array is reduced by a channel reduction factor and wherein the channel reduction factor is 8/5 or greater (Paragraph 1 of Discussion section teaches that the channel reduction factor can be up to 18. Paragraphs 1-3 teach the control of the transmission and reception).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishrak with Rodriguez-Molares’s teaching of the reduction according to a defined channel reduction factor. This modified apparatus would allow the user to utilize a simpler method than synthetic aperture sequential beamforming (SASB) (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares). Furthermore, the modification is able to reduce the number of channels between probe and the scanner (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares).
Regarding claim 8, Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of receive elements of the transducer array is reduced by a channel reduction factor and wherein the channel reduction factor is 4 or greater.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Rodriguez-Molares teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of receive elements of the transducer array is reduced by a channel reduction factor and wherein the channel reduction factor is 4 or greater (Paragraph 1 of Discussion section teaches that the channel reduction factor can be up to 18. Paragraphs 1-3 teach the control of the transmission and reception).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishrak with Rodriguez-Molares’s teaching of the reduction according to a defined channel reduction factor. This modified apparatus would allow the user to utilize a simpler method than synthetic aperture sequential beamforming (SASB) (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares). Furthermore, the modification is able to reduce the number of channels between probe and the scanner (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares).
Regarding claim 9, Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of receive elements of the transducer array is reduced by a channel reduction factor and wherein the channel reduction factor is 8 or greater.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Rodriguez-Molares teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of receive elements of the transducer array is reduced by a channel reduction factor and wherein the channel reduction factor is 8 or greater (Paragraph 1 of Discussion section teaches that the channel reduction factor can be up to 18. Paragraphs 1-3 teach the control of the transmission and reception).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishrak with Rodriguez-Molares’s teaching of the reduction according to a defined channel reduction factor. This modified apparatus would allow the user to utilize a simpler method than synthetic aperture sequential beamforming (SASB) (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares). Furthermore, the modification is able to reduce the number of channels between probe and the scanner (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 7, as discussed above.
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of transmit elements of the transducer array is reduced by the same channel reduction factor as the number of receive elements.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Rodriguez-Molares teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein a number of transmit elements of the transducer array is reduced by the same channel reduction factor as the number of receive elements (Paragraph 1 of Discussion section teaches that the channel reduction factor can be up to 18. Paragraphs 1-3 teach the control of the transmission and reception).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ishrak with Rodriguez-Molares’s teaching of the reduction according to a defined channel reduction factor with respect to the transmission and the reception. This modified apparatus would allow the user to utilize a simpler method than synthetic aperture sequential beamforming (SASB) (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares). Furthermore, the modification is able to reduce the number of channels between probe and the scanner (Abstract of Rodriguez-Molares).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kandori (PGPUB No. US 20160128579): Teaches the use of an ultrasound probe with an acoustic lens with varying thicknesses.
Zhao et al. (PGPUB No. US 2023/0324548): Teaches the use of an ultrasound probe with an acoustic lens with varying thicknesses and control on the delay.
Brown et al. (PGPUB No. US 2025/0199170): Teaches the use of an ultrasound probe with an acoustic lens with varying thicknesses and control on the delay.
Lele (US Patent No. 4,893,624): Teaches the use of an ultrasound probe with an acoustic lens with varying thicknesses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798