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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a time of flight measurement unit in claim 1 and 13.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-20 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 limitation “a time of flight measurement unit” in claims 1 and 13 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function.
The specification does not provide a clear structure, such as processor, or specific circuit, calculator or even general computer to perform the recited limitation for time of flight measurement unit. Figure 2 shows empty box 250 as a time of flight measurement unit, but does not provide any specific structure for performing the function. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which structures perform the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected as they inherit the rejection of claims 1 and 13 set forth above due to their dependency.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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 and 13 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. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate structure to perform the claimed function of determine a change in a temporal delay between the series of pulses and the received ultrasound waveform. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one or ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-12 and 14-20 are rejected as they inherit the rejection of claims 1 and 13 set forth above due to their dependency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and amended to overcome 112 rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Ragauskas et al.,” US 2009/0198137 (hereinafter Ragauskas) and “Freear et al.,” WO 2022/123254 (hereinafter Freear).
Regarding to claim 1, Ragauskas teaches a system for non-invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) sensing (measurement and monitoring of intracranial pressure changes [0001] and [0024]), comprising:
an ultrasound transmitter that emits an ultrasound waveform based on the series of pulses (transmitting and receiving transducer [0066]);
an ultrasound receiver that receives the ultrasound waveform (transmitting and receiving transducer [0066]),
wherein a head of a patient is disposed between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver (second ultrasound transducer positioned on an substantially opposite side of the patient’s head from the first ultrasonic transducer [0027]); and
a time of flight (ToF) measurement unit configured to determine a change in a temporal delay between the series of pulses and the received ultrasound waveform (Time of Flight measured, time-of-flight between left and right transducers and instrumental delay time of signals in transducers and receivers [0079]-[0080]).
Ragauskas does not explicitly disclose a signal generator generates a series of pulses to be used by an ultrasound transmitter.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound transmitters, Freear teaches a pulse generator to produce transducer response for transmitter ([0010] and [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating pulses as taught by Ragauskas to incorporate teaching of Freear, since pulse generator was well known in the art as taught by Freear. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas with no change in their respective functions, implementing/configuring pulse generator, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide pulses to transmitters ([0014]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 2, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ragauskas further teaches wherein the signal generator is a constant frequency signal generator (period of human head insonation is fixed at 1000 Hz by reference clock [0066]).
Regarding to claims 3-4, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set for the above.
Freear further teaches ultrasound transmitter switchable to various modes of operation ([0001]), using class DE power amplifier to drive the ultrasound device coupled to the transmitter ([0014]-[0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating pulses to transducer as taught by Ragauskas to incorporate teaching of Freear, since class DE power amplifer was well known in the art as taught by Freear. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas with no change in their respective functions, configuring power amplifier in circuits in transmitter, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide power amplifier in compact and efficient manner ([0015]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 13, Ragauskas teaches a method for non-invasive intracranial pressure (ICP) sensing ([0001] and [0024]), comprising:
generating, by a signal generator, a series of pulses;
emitting, by an ultrasound transmitter an ultrasound waveform based on the series of pulses (transmitting and receiving transducer [0066]);
receiving, by an ultrasound receiver, the ultrasound waveform (transmitting and receiving transducer [0066]),
wherein a head of a patient is disposed between the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver (second ultrasound transducer positioned on an substantially opposite side of the patient’s head from the first ultrasonic transducer [0027]);; and
determining, by a time of flight (ToF) measurement unit, a change in a temporal delay between the series of pulses and the received ultrasound waveform (Time of Flight measured, time-of-flight between left and right transducers and instrumental delay time of signals in transducers and receivers [0079]-[0080]).
Ragauskas does not explicitly disclose a signal generator generates a series of pulses to be used by an ultrasound transmitter.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound transmitters, Freear teaches a pulse generator to produce transducer response for transmitter ([0010] and [0014]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify generating pulses as taught by Ragauskas to incorporate teaching of Freear, since pulse generator was well known in the art as taught by Freear. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas with no change in their respective functions, implementing/configuring pulse generator, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide pulses to transmitters ([0014]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 14, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Ragauskas further teaches determining the ICP based on the change in the temporal delay (delay times are measured [0080]; time of flight determined using delay time of signals in transmitters and receivers [0079]; ICP from time of flight [0062], [0067], and [0078]).
Regarding to claim 15, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Ragauskas further teaches disposing the ultrasound transmitter and the ultrasound receiver on opposing temporal bone windows (opposite side of the patient’s head [0027]).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas and Freear as applied to claims 4 and 13 above, and further in view of “Hori,” US 2017/0230017 (hereinafter Hori).
Regarding to claim 5, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 4 as set forth above.
Ragauskas and Freear do not further teach power amplifier comprises a first switch and a second switch, both implemented using cascode switches to double a supply voltage.
However, in the analogous field of power amplifier in transmitter circuits, Hori teaches cascode amplifier which uses two switch elements ([0013]), and by employing casocode configuration, voltage can be doubled ([0013], [0016], and [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify class DE power amplifier as taught by Freear to incorporate teaching of Hori, since cascode switches in power amplifier was well known in the art as taught by Hori. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Freear with no change in their respective functions, configuring two cascode switches in power amplifier, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to improve the voltage twice ([0013]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding to claim 16, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Freear further teaches a Class-DE power amplifier ([0014]-[0015]), but does not further disclose a first switch and a second switch, both implemented using cascode switches to double a supply voltage.
However, in the analogous field of power amplifier in transmitter circuits, Hori teaches cascode amplifier which uses two switch elements ([0013]), and by employing casocode configuration, voltage can be doubled ([0013], [0016], and [0047]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify class DE power amplifier as taught by Freear to incorporate teaching of Hori, since cascode switches in power amplifier was well known in the art as taught by Hori. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Freear with no change in their respective functions, configuring two cascode switches in power amplifier, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to improve the voltage twice ([0013]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas and Freear as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of “Jarvik et al.,” US 2012/0108918 (hereinafter Jarvik).
Regarding to claim 6, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 3 as set forth above.
Ragauskas and Freear do not disclose further comprising a matching network disposed between the power amplifier and the ultrasound transmitter, wherein the matching network is configured to down-convert an impedance of the ultrasound transmitter.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound transducer system, Jarvik teaches the ultrasound transducer was driven by waveform generators and a power amplifier, wherein the output of the gated waveform generator was amplified by the power amplifier which was connected to the transducer via an impedance matching network ([0127]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify power amplifier and transmitter as taught by Ragauskas and Freear to incorporate teaching of Jarvik, since matching network was well known in the art as taught by Jarvik. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas and Freear with no change in their respective functions, adding a matching network between power amplifier and the transmitter(transducer), and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to match impedance of the transducer ([0127]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas and Freear as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Haneda et al.,” US 2019/0033431 (hereinafter Haneda).
Regarding to claim 7, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ragauskas does not further teach following limitations with regards to ToF measurement units, wherein the ToF measurement unit comprises a time-to-digital converter (TDC).
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound system, Haneda teaches ultrasound measuring device ([0142]) measuring time of flight, converting a time into a digital value using time-to-digital converters ([0116]-[0117]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ToF measurement unit as taught by Ragauskas to incorporate teaching of Haneda, since a time-to-digital converter was well known in the art as taught by Haneda. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas with no change in their respective functions, implementing time-to-digital converter in detection circuit, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide conversion of time to digital signals to be used for ultrasound measurement ([0047]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas and Freear and Haneda as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Kim et al.,” US 9,568,890 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding to claims 8-9, Ragauskas, Freear, and Haneda together teach all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above.
Haneda further teaches a delayed locked loop (DLL) circuit in time to digital converter ([0138]), but does not specifically disclose a successive approximation register based TDC and wherein the time-to-digital converter comprises a coarse delay line, a fine delay line, and a phase detector as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in digital delay-locked loops circuits on time-to-digital converter, Kim teaches circuit comprising a coarse digital delay line, fine digital delay line, successive approximation register, time-to-digital converter and phase detector (Figure 2, 101 delay locked loop, 104 Coarse digital delay line, 105 Fine delay line, 107 Successive approximation register, 108 Time-to-digital converter, and 111 phase detector, Col. 4 lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ToF measurement unit with a time-to-digital converter as taught by Ragauskas and Haneda, to incorporate teaching of Kim, since circuit comprising a coarse digital delay line, fine digital delay line, successive approximation register, time-to-digital converter and phase detector was well known in the art as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas and Haneda with no change in their respective functions, implementing circuit with delay line, phase detector and successive approximation register in time-to-digital converter circuit, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to synchronize the phases based on the successive approximation register removing the phase error and to adjust delay (Col. 4 lines 30-52), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas, Freear, and Haneda as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of “Bautista Gabriel et al.,” US 2022/0006459 (hereinafter Bautista Gabriel).
Regarding to claim 11, Ragauskas, Freear, and Haneda together teach all limitations of claim 7 as set forth above.
Haneda does not further teach wherein the ToF measurement unit further comprises an initial tunable delay configured to delay an input of the TDC.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in detection circuit of time to digital converter, Bautista Gabriel teaches a tunable delay circuit prior to time-to-digital convert circuit ([0015] Figure 1), delayed signal is provided to an input to time-to-digital converter ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time to digital converter as taught by Haneda to incorporate teaching of Bautista Gabriel, since a tunable delay circuit was well known in the art as taught by Bautista Gabriel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas, Freear, and Haneda with no change in their respective functions, adding a tunable delay circuit prior to time to digital converter, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide input delayed signal to the time-to-digital converter ([0078]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas and Freear as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of “Perez et al.,” US 2025/0261923 (hereinafter Perez).
Regarding to claim 12, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 1 as set forth above.
Ragauskas teaches monitoring pressure using ultrasound transducers, but does not disclose wherein the system is wearable.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound based monitoring intracranial pressure, Perez teaches monitoring intracranial pressure device is wearable device ([0009] and [0015]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the ICP monitoring device as taught by Ragauskas to incorporate teaching of Perez, since wearable intracranial pressure monitoring device was well known in the art as taught by Perez. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas with no change in their respective functions, configuring the device to be wearable, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to non-invasive flexible wearable device (abstract and [0009]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas and Freear as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of “Haneda et al.,” US 2019/0033431 (hereinafter Haneda) and “Kim et al.,” US 9,568,890 (hereinafter Kim).
Regarding to claims 17-18, Ragauskas and Freear together teach all limitations of claim 13 as set forth above.
Ragauskas and Freear do not further teach wherein the ToF measurement unit comprises a successive approximation register (SAR) DLL-based time-to-digital converter (TDC).
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in ultrasound system, Haneda teaches ultrasound measuring device ([0142]) measuring time of flight, converting a time into a digital value using DLL type time-to-digital converters ([0116]-[0117]; DLL [0138]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ToF measurement unit as taught by Ragauskas to incorporate teaching of Haneda, since a time-to-digital converter was well known in the art as taught by Haneda. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas with no change in their respective functions, implementing time-to-digital converter in detection circuit, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide conversion of time to digital signals to be used for ultrasound measurement ([0047]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Haneda further teaches a delayed locked loop (DLL) circuit in time to digital converter ([0138]), but does not specifically disclose a successive approximation register based TDC and wherein the time-to-digital converter comprises a coarse delay line, a fine delay line, and a phase detector as claimed.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in digital delay-locked loops circuits on time-to-digital converter, Kim teaches circuit comprising a coarse digital delay line, fine digital delay line, successive approximation register, time-to-digital converter and phase detector (Figure 2, 101 delay locked loop, 104 Coarse digital delay line, 105 Fine delay line, 107 Successive approximation register, 108 Time-to-digital converter, and 111 phase detector, Col. 4 lines 13-18).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify ToF measurement unit with a time-to-digital converter as taught by Ragauskas and Haneda, to incorporate teaching of Kim, since circuit comprising a coarse digital delay line, fine digital delay line, successive approximation register, time-to-digital converter and phase detector was well known in the art as taught by Kim. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas and Haneda with no change in their respective functions, implementing circuit with delay line, phase detector and successive approximation register in time-to-digital converter circuit, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to synchronize the phases based on the successive approximation register removing the phase error and to adjust delay (Col. 4 lines 30-52), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ragauskas, Freear, Haneda, and Kim as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of “Bautista Gabriel et al.,” US 2022/0006459 (hereinafter Bautista Gabriel).
Regarding to claim 20, Ragauskas, Freear, Haneda, and Kim together teach all limitations of claim 17 as set forth above.
Ragauskas, Freear, Haneda, and Kim do not further teach wherein the ToF measurement unit further comprises an initial tunable delay configured to delay an input of the TDC.
However, in the analogous field of endeavor in detection circuit of time to digital converter, Bautista Gabriel teaches a tunable delay circuit prior to time-to-digital convert circuit ([0015] Figure 1), delayed signal is provided to an input to time-to-digital converter ([0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the time to digital converter as taught by Haneda to incorporate teaching of Bautista Gabriel, since a tunable delay circuit was well known in the art as taught by Bautista Gabriel. One of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by Ragauskas, Freear, Haneda, and Kim, with no change in their respective functions, adding a tunable delay circuit prior to time to digital converter, and the combination would have yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. The motivation would have been to provide input delayed signal to the time-to-digital converter ([0078]), and there was reasonable expectation of success.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PATRICIA J PARK whose telephone number is (571)270-1788. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8 am - 3 pm.
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 at 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.
/PATRICIA J PARK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights