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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) “determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves; mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions; determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission; determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims are directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements, but fail to add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Also, the claims are directed to a method of using a mathematical correlation, wherein data gathering steps required to use the mathematical correlation without adding a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements in the claims considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Each of Claims 21-40 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Each of Claims 21-40 recites at least one step or instruction for “determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves; mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions; determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission; determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission”, which is grouped as a mental process under the 2019 PEG. The claimed limitations involve observation, judgment or evaluation using mathematical processes/correlations. Accordingly, each of Claims 21-40 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 21 recites:
21. (New) A method for ultrasound imaging, comprising: determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves; mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions; determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission; determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission; and generating a target ultrasonic image of a target object based on ultrasonic image information, the ultrasonic image information being collected by a transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position corresponding to the each emission.
Specifically, Claim 30 recites:
30. (New) A system, comprising: at least one storage device storing a set of instructions for ultrasound imaging; and at least one processor configured to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including: determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves; mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions; determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission; determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission; and generating a target ultrasonic image of a target object based on ultrasonic image information, the ultrasonic image information being collected by a transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position corresponding to the each emission.
Specifically, Claim 38 recites:
38. (New) A non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising a set of instructions for ultrasound imaging, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the set of instructions direct the at least one processor to effectuate a method, the method comprising: determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves; mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions; determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission; determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission; and generating a target ultrasonic image of a target object based on ultrasonic image information, the ultrasonic image information being collected by a transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position corresponding to the each emission.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea.
Further, dependent Claims 22-29, 31-37, 39 and 40 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 21, 30 and 38 (and their respective dependent Claims 22-29, 31-37, 39 and 40) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 21, 30 and 38), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use. More specifically, the additional elements of: a computer is generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 38 (and their respective dependent claims) which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field. Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine, effect a transformation or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 21-40 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG.
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application under 2019 PEG because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.ga computer as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer. Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 21-40 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application under the 2019 PEG.
Accordingly, independent Claims 21, 30 and 38 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea under 2019 PEG.
None of Claims 21-40 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for at least the following reasons.
Per Applicant’s specification, the computer according to paragraph 0047 is generically described without structure or detailed drawings, e.g., schematic drawing or described as an iphone or ipad or mobile device or personal computer or laptop and hence such computer components are well understood, routine and conventional.
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term computer device, is reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process.
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the a computer device. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see Berkheimer memo from April 19, 2018, (III)(A)(1) on page 3). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claims 21-40 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the apparatuses and methods of Claims 21-40 are directed to applying an abstract idea (e.g., mental process or certain method of organizing human activity) on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself (as in McRO, Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR). In other words, none of Claims 21-40 provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 21-40 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. That is, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity. When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment. As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application. As such, the above-identified additional elements, when viewed as whole, do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Thus, Claims 21-40 merely apply an abstract idea to a computer and do not (i) improve the performance of the computer itself (as in Bascom and Enfish), or (ii) provide a technical solution to a problem in a technical field (as in DDR).
Therefore, none of the Claims 21-40 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Accordingly, Claims 21-40 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as being directed to abstract ideas implemented on a generic computer in view of the Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International, et al. and 2019 PEG.
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 (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 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 21-23, 29-32, and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sumi et al. (US 2019/0129026 A1).
With respect to claim 21, Sumi discloses method for ultrasound imaging, comprising: determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves (see paragraphs 0227); mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0337-0338); determining an emission distance (see paragraph 0387) and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission (see paragraphs 0394, 0558); determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance (see paragraph 0387) and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission (see paragraphs 0394, 0558); and generating a target ultrasonic image of a target object based on ultrasonic image information (see paragraph 0413), the ultrasonic image information being collected by a transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position corresponding to the each emission (see paragraph 0394).
With respect to claims 22, 31 and 39, Sumi discloses wherein the mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions includes: mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to the plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions through a nonlinear curve (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0337-0338; see Figures 7, 8A-8B and 14).
With respect to claims 23, 32 and 40, Sumi discloses the emission parameter includes a count of channels of the transducer, an array element width (see paragraph 0616), and a curvature of the transducer (see paragraph 0407), and the determining an emission distance (see paragraph 0387) and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on the emission parameter and the second relative position corresponding to the each emission includes (see paragraphs 0394, 0558): determining the emission distance corresponding to the each emission based on the count of channels of the transducer (see paragraphs 0201-0202), the array element width (see paragraph 0616), and the second relative position corresponding to the each emission; and determining the focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance corresponding to the each emission (see paragraph 0387), the second relative position corresponding to the each emission and the curvature of the transducer (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0337-0338; see Figures 7, 8A-8B and 14).
With respect to claim 29, Sumi discloses for the each emission, adaptively determining an effective aperture corresponding to the emission based on a radius of a transducer, an array element pointing angle, and the focus position corresponding to the emission, wherein the ultrasonic image information is collected by the transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position and the effective aperture corresponding to the each emission (see paragraphs 0198 and 0204).
With respect to claim 30, Sumi discloses a system, comprising (see Figure 2 showing imaging system): at least one storage device storing a set of instructions for ultrasound imaging (storage #60); and at least one processor configured
PNG
media_image1.png
478
427
media_image1.png
Greyscale
to communicate with the at least one storage device, wherein when executing the set of instructions, the at least one processor is configured to direct the system to perform operations including (processing unit #33): determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves (see paragraphs 0227), to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves (see paragraphs 0227); mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0337-0338); determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission (see paragraph 0387); determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission (see paragraphs 0394, 0558); and generating a target ultrasonic image of a target object based on ultrasonic image information (see paragraph 0413), the ultrasonic image information being collected by a transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position corresponding to the each emission (see paragraph 0394; see transducers #10 and #20).
With respect to claim 38, Sumi discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising a set of instructions for ultrasound imaging, wherein when executed by at least one processor, the set of instructions direct the at least one processor to effectuate a method, the method comprising: determining a first relative position corresponding to each emission of a plurality of ultrasonic waves based on emission times and/or an emission order of the plurality of ultrasonic waves, to obtain a plurality of first relative positions corresponding to a plurality of emissions of the plurality of ultrasonic waves (see paragraphs 0227); mapping the plurality of first relative positions distributed at equal intervals to a plurality of second relative positions distributed at unequal intervals corresponding to the plurality of emissions (see paragraphs 0041-0042 and 0337-0338); determining an emission distance and a focus radius corresponding to the each emission based on an emission parameter and a second relative position corresponding to the each emission (see paragraph 0387); determining a focus position corresponding to the each emission based on the emission distance and the focus radius corresponding to the each emission (see paragraphs 0394, 0558); and generating a target ultrasonic image of a target object based on ultrasonic image information (see paragraph 0413), the ultrasonic image information being collected by a transducer via emitting the plurality of ultrasonic waves to the target object according to the focus position corresponding to the each emission (see paragraph 0394; see transducers #10 and #20).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 24-28, and 33-37 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art cited in the PTO 892 not relied upon discloses ultrasound device systems with processing means to track or determine the position of the emitting device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Raymond Keith 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798