DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 06/11/2026 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Claims 1-20 are pending (Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from consideration).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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejection under Ishrak, Applicant argues that “Ishrak does not disclose this amended arrangement. The Office Action relies on Ishrak's compound lens 503 and portions 511, 513, and 515 as allegedly corresponding to the claimed lens elements. See Office Action 19. But Ishrak describes a compound lens affixed to a sparse transducer array, where "when element 510 is activated, the energy generated is focused by the portion 511 of lens 503" at near-field focal zone A, and where portions 513 and 515 focus energy from elements 512 and 514 at far-field focal zone B. Ishrak, col. 9, 11. 22-39; FIGS. 5A-5B. Ishrak is thus directed to using compound-lens portions to mechanically focus ultrasonic bursts at preset focal zones in the elevational plane. Ishrak does not disclose lens-element groups that create corresponding transducer-element groups that emit signals in the same time signature, nor does Ishrak disclose the amended front-end beamforming architecture in which grouped lens elements introduce mechanical delay to produce group-wise time signatures.” Applicant further argues that this does not address the same time signature.
Examiner disagrees. MPEP 716.01(c) establishes “Arguments presented by the applicant cannot take the place of evidence in the record. In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965) and In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the preclusion of application of focused ultrasound) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). With respect to the time signature, Ishrak teaches this given col. 9, lines 22-57 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. The lenses 511 and 515 provide a common focus and the elements within lens 513 provide a common focus. Abstract teaches that the emission and activation is simultaneous to focus on the specified location and can be done based on the lens. See Fig. 5B. Applicant has not provided any limitation or emphasis on what the time signature is, how it is formulated, and how it is utilized in neither the claims nor the specification. With respect to the argument that Ishrak does not provide mechanical delay, multiple recitations have been provided that the element is an acoustic lens. The title of Ishrak is “Sparse Two-dimensional Transducer Array With Compound Lens”.
Examiner maintains the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to the rejection of claim 4, Applicant argues “Ishrak does not disclose that base architecture for the reasons discussed above and Brown does not cure the deficiency. Brown is directed to crossed-electrode ultrasound transducer arrays and Fresnel sub-apertures, where delay correction compensates for path-length variations between Fresnel sub-apertures and a focal point. See Brown 1[0003], [0084]-[0085]. Brown's delay-corrected Fresnel sub-apertures do not disclose or suggest modifying Ishrak's compound lens portions to provide grouped lens elements that create corresponding groups of transducer elements emitting in the same time signature through mechanical delay introduced by one or more lens layers.” Applicant further argues “The proposed combination relies on Ishrak for the physical lens structure and on Brown for delay mediation associated with Fresnel sub-apertures, but neither reference teaches the amended group-wise mechanical-delay architecture of the claims. Nor has the Office Action provided an articulated reason, with rational underpinning under KSR, why a person of ordinary skill would have modified Ishrak's fixed-focus compound lens to provide the claimed lens- element groups that create corresponding same-time-signature transducer-element groups.”
Examiner disagrees. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Furthermore, MPEP 2145 establishes “If a prima facie case of obviousness is established, the burden shifts to the applicant to come forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case. See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Rebuttal evidence and arguments can be presented in the specification, In re Soni, 54 F.3d 746, 750, 34 USPQ2d 1684, 1687 (Fed. Cir. 1995), by counsel, In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 299, 36 USPQ2d 1089, 1094-95 (Fed. Cir. 1995), or by way of an affidavit or declaration under 37 CFR 1.132, e.g., Soni, 54 F.3d at 750, 34 USPQ2d at 1687; In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1474, 223 USPQ 785, 789-90 (Fed. Cir. 1984). However, arguments of counsel cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence. See, e.g., In re Huang, 100 F.3d 135, 139-40, 40 USPQ2d 1685, 1689 (Fed. Cir. 1996); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984).” Applicant does not address the fact that Ishrak teaches the use of multiple lenses with corresponding ultrasound transducer as taught in the claim 1 and the claim 4. Assuming, arguendo, Ishrak was deficient with the teaching, Brown explicitly teaches a Fresnel lens. Applicant acknowledges this in their own remarks, filed 06/11/2026, in page 8. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, 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). This was established in the prior action, filed 03/11/2026 and in this instant action.
Examiner maintains the rejection.
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 1-10 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 “wherein the plurality of different lens elements include one or more groups of lens elements”. Paragraphs 0006, 0012-13, and 0037 disclose the groups having the lens elements. The specification fails to disclose the invention such that the lens elements include one or more groups of elements. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “which create one or more groups of corresponding transducer elements that emit signals in the same time signature”. While paragraph 0037 recites “As shown in FIG. 1 , these plurality of different lens elements can include one or more groups of lens elements, which create one or more groups of corresponding transducer elements that emit signals in the same time signature”, the specification fails to disclose what the time signature is or its manner of operation. Time signature is not further disclosed in a manner that one with ordinary skill in the art would be able to understand what is being referred to. In addition to not disclosing what the time signature is, the specification does not disclose how the signals have the same time signature based on “these plurality of different lens elements can include one or more groups of lens elements” such that the create this time signature. With respect to the recited Fig. 1, nothing in the drawing shows a time signature or a temporal context. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements”. Paragraphs 0006, 0012-13, and 0037 disclose the groups having the lens elements. The specification fails to disclose the invention such that the lens elements include one or more groups of elements. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements”. Paragraphs 0006, 0012-13, and 0037 disclose the groups having the lens elements. The specification fails to disclose the invention such that the lens elements include one or more groups of elements. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 6 recites “the first spacing is adjustable by adjusting the height of each element in the acoustic lens, relative to a spacing with the transducer array”. While paragraph 0030 of the specification discloses “In some embodiments, the mechanical delays can be tailored for specific imaging applications by flexibly/optimally adjusting the height off each element in the acoustic lens, relative to a spacing with the transducer array”, the specification fails to disclose that it is the first spacing that is being adjusted based on the height. Rather, as the specification discloses the mechanical delays are based on the height adjustments relative to the spacing rather than adjusting the spacing itself. Paragraphs 0007 and 0014 are disclose that the first spacing. However, neither portion of the specification discloses that this is by “adjusting the height of each element in the acoustic lens, relative to a spacing with the transducer array”. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 1-10 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 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the plurality of different lens elements”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the plurality of different lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “plurality of different lens elements” is the same as the “plurality of lens elements” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the plurality of different lens elements include one or more groups of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the relation of the elements is with the groupings. One interpretation is that it is each of the elements comprises sub-elements of the lens. Another interpretation is that it is the manner that it is grouped. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the same time signature”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the same time signature”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the time signature is the same as or what it is in relation with.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the same time signature”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what is considered to be a time signature. One interpretation is that it is the ultrasound travel time. Another interpretation is that it is the frequency.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the plurality of different lens elements include one or more groups of lens elements, which create one or more groups of corresponding transducer elements that emit signals in the same time signature”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner the different lens can create a transducer element. It is well-known in the art the creation of transducer elements is based on the PZT structure or micromachining CMUT or PMUT.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the one or more lens layers are configured to introduce a mechanical delay for front-end beamforming to affect a time delay of at least some of the signals emitted by the transducer elements”. This claim element is indefinite. The preceding claim element establishes that the “the plurality of different lens elements include one or more groups of lens elements, which create one or more groups of corresponding transducer elements that emit signals in the same time signature”. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if there is an introduction of the time delay to some of the signals emitted by the transducer elements or if the time signature is the same. That is, it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the transmission is the same or different.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the plurality of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “the plurality of lens elements” is the same as the “the plurality of different lens elements” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a plurality of groups of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “plurality of groups of lens elements” is the same as the “one or more groups of lens elements” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the relation of the elements is with the groupings. One interpretation is that it is each of the elements comprises sub-elements of the lens. Another interpretation is that it is the manner that it is grouped. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements, and lens elements within each group of the plurality of groups are of the same type”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the lens is with the groups or the groups are within the lens. Furthermore, would be unclear what the relationship is with respect to the claim 1 recitation as that establishes that the lens elements are different.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein different lens layers with the different ones of the plurality of groups of lens elements have different lens thicknesses”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the elements are referring to the group and elements in claim 1 or claim 2. Furthermore, it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if they are different as established in the present element and claim 1 or if they are the same as established in claim 2.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 4 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the plurality of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “the plurality of lens elements” is the same as the “the plurality of different lens elements” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a plurality of groups of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “plurality of groups of lens elements” is the same as the “one or more groups of lens elements” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the relation of the elements is with the groupings. One interpretation is that it is each of the elements comprises sub-elements of the lens. Another interpretation is that it is the manner that it is grouped. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 6 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the height”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “each element in the acoustic lens”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what element is present in the acoustic lens. An acoustic lens is known in the art to be based on a material that composes it1.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a spacing”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “spacing” is the same as the “first spacing” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “and the first spacing is adjustable by adjusting the height of each element in the acoustic lens, relative to a spacing with the transducer array”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the first spacing is the spacing with the transducer array given that the already establishes it ot be “relative to the transducer array”.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
The claim as a whole would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim element is as in its present form, the claim element is grammatically incorrect.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 plurality of different lens elements include one or more groups of lens elements, which create one or more groups of corresponding transducer elements that emit signals in the same time signature (Col. 9, lines 22-57 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. The lenses 511 and 515 provide a common focus and the elements within lens 513 provide a common focus. Abstract teaches that the emission and activation is simultaneous to focus on the specified location and can be done based on the lens. See Fig. 5B); and
wherein the one or more lens layers are configured to introduce a mechanical delay for front-end beamforming 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. See Fig. 5.).
Regarding claim 2, Ishrak teaches the sparse-array ultrasound imaging system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Ishrak further teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements, 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 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 of lens elements 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 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.
Ishrak further teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the plurality of lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements (Col. 9, lines 22-57 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. The lenses 511 and 515 provide a common focus and the elements within lens 513 provide a common focus. Abstract teaches that the emission and activation is simultaneous to focus on the specified location and can be done based on the lens. See Fig. 5B).
However, Ishrak is silent regarding a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, the plurality of groups include at least a first group and a second group, and the one or more lens elements 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 elements 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 lens elements comprise a plurality of groups of lens elements, the plurality of groups include at least a first group and a second group, and the one or more lens elements 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 elements 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 Miyazaki et al. (PGPUB No. US 4,434,658).
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 comprise an acoustic lens and are coupled to the ultrasound transducer at a first spacing relative to the transducer array, and the first spacing is adjustable by adjusting the height of each element in the acoustic lens, relative to a spacing with the transducer array.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound imaging control, Miyazaki teaches a sparse-array ultrasound imaging system, wherein the one or more lens layers comprise an acoustic lens and are coupled to the ultrasound transducer at a first spacing relative to the transducer array, and the first spacing is adjustable by adjusting the height of each element in the acoustic lens, relative to a spacing with the transducer array (Col. 18, lines 66 to Col. 19, lines 38 teaches that the acoustic lens can be moved with respect to the transducer. The distance can be controlled to maintain constant value during the movement. See Fig. 23).
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 Miyazaki’s teaching of adjustable acoustic lens with respect to the spacing to the transducer. This modified apparatus would allow the user to eliminate the space noise or/and timing noise and improve the signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) (Col. 3 of Miyazaki). Furthermore, the modification provides noiseless and clear tomographic plane images for the desired imaging plane and provide industrial advantages (Col. 19 of Miyzaki).
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, 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 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 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, 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 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 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:
Sumi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0129026): Teaches use of lenses to ensure consistent phase.
Sliwa et al. (PGPUB No. US 2008/0194967): Teaches adjusting the spacing with respect to the transducer spacing for acoustic lens.
Poland (PGPUB No. US 2014/0088430): Teaches use of lenses to ensure consistent delay.
Foster et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0069879): Teaches use of lenses to ensure consistent frequency.
Popa et al. (PGPUB No. US 2023/0056534): Teaches adjusting the spacing with respect to the transducer spacing for acoustic lens.
Kiyose et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0105663): Teaches use of lenses to ensure consistent phase.
Oppelt et al. (US Patent No. 5,370,120): Teaches adjusting the spacing with respect to the transducer spacing for acoustic lens.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
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
1 Referring to an epoxy acoustic lens. “[M]echanical materials such as the acoustic lens, matching layer, and backing layer affect the performances of the medical ultrasound transducers.” (Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5804411/)
Referring to silicone lenses (Link: https://shinpoly.com/acoustic-lens-for-ultrasound/)
Prosecution Insights