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 .
Priority
Should applicant desire to obtain the benefit of foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d) prior to declaration of an interference, a certified English translation of the foreign application must be submitted in reply to this action. 37 CFR 41.154(b) and 41.202(e).
Failure to provide a certified translation may result in no benefit being accorded for the non-English application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 06/30/2025 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the youtube link -pg. 1 cite no. 24 is no longer available. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because of the following informalities and should recite:
Claim 2: line 3, “each [[of]] pixel[[s]]”.
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 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claim 1-12 are directed to an “apparatus” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claim 1 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), & the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“ perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and
perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and
[...]
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from mutually different transducer elements included in the plurality of transducer elements, and
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. ”
Claim 11 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), & the abstract idea of “mathematical concepts” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).I.), substantially as follows:
“ perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves,
perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals,
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements different from each other, and
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”
In claims 1 and 11, the above recited steps set forth both mathematical manipulation of data and evaluative reasoning that can be performed conceptually. In particular, performing multiple beamforming processes on data and the calculating of an evaluation value indicating the correlation among that data reflects the application of mathematical relationships (e.g., correlation calculations and computational techniques) to derive a result. Specifically, these expressions of a first beamforming processing, second beamforming processing, third beamforming processing rely on formal calculations such as combining, comparing, and transforming values according to relationships. The subsequent step of selecting or performing a third beamforming process based on that calculated evaluation value and prior results constitutes an analysis and decision-making step that can be carried out mentally by comparing data and determining an appropriate outcome. Thus, the claims set forth both mathematical concepts through the calculation and correlation of data, and a mental process through the evaluative comparison and selection based on those results. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in performing of the beamforming process or the calculation of the evaluation value.
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 14 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of “An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and processing circuitry, wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to [...] the processing circuitry is configured to”- (claim 1), “An image processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to" (claim 11).
The steps in (1) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details). Data gathering and mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer do not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application (MPEP 2106.05 (f and g)).
Regarding the limitations of claim 1 & 11, directed to the “processing circuitry configured to”, specifically, it is treated as a generic computer implementation, which falls under mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and therefore does not place the abstract idea into a practical application that solves a technological solution in a meaningful way or improve the functionality of the technology or generic computer “itself”. Simply, it’s a generic computer implementation of a mental process rather than a meaningful limitation. Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the outputs are not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Further, there is no evidence of record that would support the assertion that this step is an improvement to a computer or technological solution to a technological problem. Ultimately, the Applicant’s describe improvement in the process of using standard beamforming techniques, but this is not an improvement in the function of a computer or other technology (See MPEP 2106.05(a)(ii); “the court determined that the claimed user interface simply provided a trader with more information to facilitate market trades, which improved the business process of market trading but did not improve computers or technology”; See MPEP 2106.04(d)(1); 2106.05(a); and 2106.05(f)). The claims are directed to the abstract idea. Also, there does not appear to be any particular structure or machine, treatment or prophylaxis, transformation, or any other meaningful application that would render the claim eligible at step 2A, prong 2.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 & 11 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite additional steps of transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and processing circuitry. These steps represents mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality. Furthermore, as discussed above, limitations with respect to the processor languages/terms, respectively, amount to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claims amount to no more than insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B and does not provide an inventive concept. The data gathering steps that were considered insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A Prong Two, have been re-evaluated in Step 2B and determined to be well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field.
As an evidence, Kiyose (US 20170028440 A1) discloses:
¶0004, ‘There is a known ultrasonic probe of related art including an ultrasonic transmitter that transmits and receives an ultrasonic wave, and the ultrasonic transmitter is electrically connected to a signal processing circuit section via a plate-shaped backing material layer, transmits an ultrasonic wave in accordance with a transmission pulse signal from the signal processing circuit section, and outputs a reception pulse signal to the signal processing circuit section in accordance with a received ultrasonic wave’
For these reasons, there is no inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. Even when viewed as a whole, nothing in the claim adds significantly more to the abstract idea.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons and therefore are not eligible:
defining calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result. (claim 2).
defining wherein perform the third beamforming processing that combines the first processing result and the second processing result based on a combination ratio based on the evaluation value. (claim 3).
defining perform the third beamforming processing such that the second processing result accounts for a larger ratio in a ratio between the first processing result and the second processing result as the evaluation value indicating the correlation increases. (claim 4).
defining perform the third beamforming processing such that, based on a combination ratio based on the evaluation value, combines the first processing result to which a weighting factor has been applied and the second processing result to which the weighting factor has been applied. (claim 5).
defining receive an input of an adjustment parameter for the weighting factor. (claim 6).
defining perform the third beamforming processing that selects the first processing result or the second processing result based on a combination ratio based on the evaluation value. (claim 7).
defining perform the second beamforming processing in at least one of a delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method, a minimum variance method, and a coherence factor beamforming method. (claim 10).
defining calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result. (claim 12).
Regarding “processing circuitry”, specifically, it is treated as a generic computer implementation, which falls under mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and therefore does not place the abstract idea into a practical application that solves a technological solution in a meaningful way or improve the functionality of the technology or generic computer “itself”. Simply, it’s a generic computer implementation of a mental process rather than a meaningful limitation. Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons and therefore are not eligible:
describing perform the first beamforming processing in a phase-additive method by delaying the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adding the delayed reflected wave signals together. (claims 8);
describing perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements. (claim 9);
Regarding “processing circuitry”, specifically, it is treated as a generic computer implementation, which falls under mere instructions to apply the abstract idea on a computer and therefore does not place the abstract idea into a practical application that solves a technological solution in a meaningful way or improve the functionality of the technology or generic computer “itself”. Simply, it’s a generic computer implementation of a mental process rather than a meaningful limitation. Regarding the processor language written at such a high level of generality of structural limitations, the processor language amounts to a generic computer component with mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer.
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al ("Regional-Lag Signed Delay Multiply and Sum Beamforming in Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging," in IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 580-591, Published on November 12 2021) in view of Ziv-Ari et al (US 2012/0004545 A1).
Claim 1: Yan discloses, An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising (¶Abstract):
transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; ([IV Experimental Setup, pg. 583 / Data Acquisition], Versonics Vantage 128 ultrasound platform is equipped with L11-4V transducer used to transmit steered plan waves and receive reflected echo signals The transducer consists of multiple elements configured to receive the reflected waves.)
wherein
the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to
perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and (YDAS - [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581], [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1: The system of Yan calculates the Delay and Sum (DAS) beamforming output on the compounded reflected wave signals. This DAS beamforming i.e., YDAS (the result of the first beamforming process) is a concrete “first beamforming process” on reflected wave signals output f rom a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves.)
perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and ([B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1: The regional-lag DMAS (rDMAS) is a non-linear beamformer that involves pairing and multiplying the coupled signals across the aperture to estimate spatial coherence. This rDMAS generates an output (i.e., YrDMAS (the result of the second beamforming process)). The DMAS processing is different from the DAS processing, hence the second beamforming processing is different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals)
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from mutually different transducer elements included in the plurality of transducer elements, and ([Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , Yan calculates an evaluation value to measure the spatial coherence (i.e., correlation) of the echo signals across the transducer elements. Specifically, Yan calculates the GSF. The GCF is computed by taking the discrete Fourier Transform of the signal data and finding the ratio between the lower-frequency power and the total power. A high GCF value indicates a strong spatial coherence (i.e., main lobe), while a low GCF indicates poor correlation (i.e., clutter or noise))
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581], [B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1, [IV Experimental Setup, pg. 583 / A. Data Acquisition & B. Parameters and Image Quality Metrics]: Yan teaches that the system sues all of the elements to create the final optimized beamformed output (YrsDMAS) (i.e., a hybrid beamforming approach). The GSF (i.e., the evaluation value) acts as the region discrimination tool. The system checks the GSF against specific threshold (i.e., alpha & beta – formula (11) to determine an adaptive maximum spatial lag. This evaluation value directly defines how the sub-apertures are divided during the rDMAS (i.e., the second beamforming). To generate the final beamforming process, the system executes a sign correction operation that combines the results of the two distinct (i.e., different beamformers – first beamforming process DAS & second beamforming process rDMAS). As shown at the top of page 583 under section III Methods, the third beamforming process is achieved by applying the mathematical sign (+/-) of the DAS method to the absolute mag of the rDMAS result, [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”)
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Claim 2: Yan as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Yan discloses, wherein calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result. Yan teaches calculating the evaluation value for individual pixels and performing the third beamforming process on each of those pixels based on the evaluation value and the results from the first and second beamforming process. Yan teaches that the signal processing model is executed on a per-pixel basis, (i.e., wave compounding the echo signals received by the transducer for a single pixel into the 2D matrix [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581]), also see “Compounding is a common method for reducing noise and improving signal quality. Based on this, we first implement the precompounding of the signal. As shown in (1), the average of the transmit dimension in X(n ) is calculated as the signal vector to be beamformed, which can be described by (3). A more accurate and robust GCF is then estimated using the compounded signal, as illustrated in Section II.”- [III. Methods / pg. 582], . ¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [III. Methods / pg. 582], [C. Simulated Cyst / pg 584-585], [E. Experimental Cyst Phantom / pg. 587], GCF (i.e., the evaluation value) is derived from this data matrix of a single pixel, the valuation is calculated pixel-by-pixel to act as a region discrimination tool, which is designed to classify the echo signals into different target regions. Hence, the pixel is determined to belong to a specific region such as a large GCF or small GCF. Furthermore, the subsequent beamforming outputs would also be generated for that specific pixel.
See also, ¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581], [B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1, [IV Experimental Setup, pg. 583 / A. Data Acquisition & B. Parameters and Image Quality Metrics]: Yan teaches that the system sues all of the elements to create the final optimized beamformed output (YrsDMAS) (i.e., a hybrid beamforming approach). The GSF (i.e., the evaluation value) acts as the region discrimination tool. The system checks the GSF against specific threshold (i.e., alpha & beta – formula (11) to determine an adaptive maximum spatial lag. This evaluation value directly defines how the sub-apertures are divided during the rDMAS (i.e., the second beamforming). To generate the final beamforming process, the system executes a sign correction operation that combines the results of the two distinct (i.e., different beamformers – first beamforming process DAS & second beamforming process rDMAS). As shown at the top of page 583 under section III Methods, the third beamforming process is achieved by applying the mathematical sign (+/-) of the DAS method to the absolute mag of the rDMAS result, [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”)
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of modified Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Claim 11: Yan discloses, An image processing apparatus comprising (¶Abstract):
perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, (YDAS - [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581], [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1: The system of Yan calculates the Delay and Sum (DAS) beamforming output on the compounded reflected wave signals. This DAS beamforming i.e., YDAS (the result of the first beamforming process) is a concrete “first beamforming process” on reflected wave signals output f rom a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves.)
perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, ([B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1: The regional-lag DMAS (rDMAS) is a non-linear beamformer that involves pairing and multiplying the coupled signals across the aperture to estimate spatial coherence. This rDMAS generates an output (i.e., YrDMAS (the result of the second beamforming process)). The DMAS processing is different from the DAS processing, hence the second beamforming processing is different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals)
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements different from each other, and ([Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , Yan calculates an evaluation value to measure the spatial coherence (i.e., correlation) of the echo signals across the transducer elements. Specifically, Yan calculates the GSF. The GCF is computed by taking the discrete Fourier Transform of the signal data and finding the ratio between the lower-frequency power and the total power. A high GCF value indicates a strong spatial coherence (i.e., main lobe), while a low GCF indicates poor correlation (i.e., clutter or noise))
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581], [B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1, [IV Experimental Setup, pg. 583 / A. Data Acquisition & B. Parameters and Image Quality Metrics]: Yan teaches that the system sues all of the elements to create the final optimized beamformed output (YrsDMAS) (i.e., a hybrid beamforming approach). The GSF (i.e., the evaluation value) acts as the region discrimination tool. The system checks the GSF against specific threshold (i.e., alpha & beta – formula (11) to determine an adaptive maximum spatial lag. This evaluation value directly defines how the sub-apertures are divided during the rDMAS (i.e., the second beamforming). To generate the final beamforming process, the system executes a sign correction operation that combines the results of the two distinct (i.e., different beamformers – first beamforming process DAS & second beamforming process rDMAS). As shown at the top of page 583 under section III Methods, the third beamforming process is achieved by applying the mathematical sign (+/-) of the DAS method to the absolute mag of the rDMAS result, [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”)
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Claim 12: Yan as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Yan discloses: wherein calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result. Yan teaches calculating the evaluation value for individual pixels and performing the third beamforming process on each of those pixels based on the evaluation value and the results from the first and second beamforming process. Yan teaches that the signal processing model is executed on a per-pixel basis, (i.e., wave compounding the echo signals received by the transducer for a single pixel into the 2D matrix [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581]), also see “Compounding is a common method for reducing noise and improving signal quality. Based on this, we first implement the precompounding of the signal. As shown in (1), the average of the transmit dimension in X(n ) is calculated as the signal vector to be beamformed, which can be described by (3). A more accurate and robust GCF is then estimated using the compounded signal, as illustrated in Section II.”- [III. Methods / pg. 582], . ¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [III. Methods / pg. 582], [C. Simulated Cyst / pg 584-585], [E. Experimental Cyst Phantom / pg. 587], GCF (i.e., the evaluation value) is derived from this data matrix of a single pixel, the valuation is calculated pixel-by-pixel to act as a region discrimination tool, which is designed to classify the echo signals into different target regions. Hence, the pixel is determined to belong to a specific region such as a large GCF or small GCF. Furthermore, the subsequent beamforming outputs would also be generated for that specific pixel.
See also, ¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581], [B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1, [IV Experimental Setup, pg. 583 / A. Data Acquisition & B. Parameters and Image Quality Metrics]: Yan teaches that the system sues all of the elements to create the final optimized beamformed output (YrsDMAS) (i.e., a hybrid beamforming approach). The GSF (i.e., the evaluation value) acts as the region discrimination tool. The system checks the GSF against specific threshold (i.e., alpha & beta – formula (11) to determine an adaptive maximum spatial lag. This evaluation value directly defines how the sub-apertures are divided during the rDMAS (i.e., the second beamforming). To generate the final beamforming process, the system executes a sign correction operation that combines the results of the two distinct (i.e., different beamformers – first beamforming process DAS & second beamforming process rDMAS). As shown at the top of page 583 under section III Methods, the third beamforming process is achieved by applying the mathematical sign (+/-) of the DAS method to the absolute mag of the rDMAS result, [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”)
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of modified Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yan et al ("Regional-Lag Signed Delay Multiply and Sum Beamforming in Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging," in IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 580-591, Published on November 12 2021) in view of Ziv-Ari et al (US 2012/0004545 A1), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0132223 A1), as evidenced by Matrone, G., Savoia, A. S., Galiano, G., Magenes, G.: The delay multiply and sum beamforming algorithm in ultrasound B-mode medical imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34(4) (2015) 940-949).
Claim 8: Yan as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, although Yan discloses the DAS method, the explicitly detail definition of the DAS method is not spelled out by Yan such that: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the first beamforming processing in a phase-additive method by delaying the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adding the delayed reflected wave signals together.
However, Hennersperger in the context of DAS & DMAS methods in ultrasound discloses: perform the first beamforming processing in a phase-additive method by delaying the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adding the delayed reflected wave signals together. (FIG. 6; [0061]; [0083]; [0004], ‘A commonly used beamforming strategy is the so-called delay-and-sum beamforming technique, as e.g. described in Thomenius, ICE.: Evolution of ultrasound beamformers. In: IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium. Volume 2. IEEE (1996) 1615-1622. In delay-and-sum beamforming, in the transmit mode, a plurality of adjacent transducer elements are activated for generating a beam, where the activation of the transducer elements located on or close to the beam axis is delayed with regard to the activation of transducer elements further away from the beam axis. As a result of the transmit delays, the effective wavefront emitted into the tissue is optimized for focusing effects at a desired point in space, due to the compensation of varying times of arrival of the emitted pulses from each transducer element at the focal point. After receiving reflected signals from the tissue, a similar procedure can be applied in receive beamforming, where individual signals received by each transducer element are once again delayed and summed up for all receiving elements.’; [0005], ‘Delay-and-sum beamforming is currently the most common implementation for ultrasound beamforming. The main advantage of delay-and-sum beamforming is its relatively low computational complexity while providing reasonable image quality. In fact, due to the low computational complexity, both transmit and receive beamforming can be carried out in real time, i.e. while taking for example 50 ultrasound images per second.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DAS method of modified Yan to be configured to perform the first beamforming processing in a phase-additive method by delaying the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adding the delayed reflected wave signals together as taught by Hennersperger. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving image quality at high processing speeds, as suggested by Hennersperger, ¶0010.
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of modified Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Claim 9: Yan as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 1, although Yan discloses the DMAS method, the explicitly detail definition of the DMAS method is not spelled out by Yan such that: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements.
However, Hennersperger in the context of DAS & DMAS methods in ultrasound discloses: perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements. (FIG. 6; [0061]; [0083]; [0006], ‘An important example of advanced, data-dependent beamforming strategies is the so-called delay-multiply-and-sum method, as described e.g. in Matrone, G., Savoia, A. S., Galiano, G., Magenes, G.: The delay multiply and sum beamforming algorithm in ultrasound B-mode medical imaging. IEEE Transactions on Medical Imaging 34(4) (2015) 940-949.’) FIG. 1 and FIG. 1 description pg 942 of Matrone disclose, a delay time T1, T2, T3 according to timing at which each of the transducer elements Xi(t) (where i is the transduce element number) output from each transducer element and the reflected wave signal is converted to a signal si(t). Matrone further discusess a derived “equivalent RF-signal” by applying the “signed” square root to each sisj couple inside the summations (in practical terms, we compute a signed geometrical mean of si and sj), so that the amplitude of each multiplication term is correctly scaled to have the same dimensionality of the RF signals , without losing its sign. Each new beamformed signal computed as y*DMAS(t).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the DMAS method of modified Yan to be configured to perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements as taught by Hennersperger. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving image quality at high processing speeds, as suggested by Hennersperger, ¶0010.
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of modified Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Claim 10: Yan as modified discloses all the elements above in claim 9, Yan discloses: wherein perform the second beamforming processing in at least one of a delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method ([B. DMAS Beamforming / pg. 582], [III. Methods / pg. 582], -“YrsDMAS = sign(YDAS) * abs (YrDMAS)”, FIG. 1: The regional-lag DMAS (rDMAS) is a non-linear beamformer that involves pairing and multiplying the coupled signals across the aperture to estimate spatial coherence. This rDMAS generates an output (i.e., YrDMAS (the result of the second beamforming process)). The DMAS processing is different from the DAS processing, hence the second beamforming processing is different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals), a minimum variance method, and a coherence factor beamforming method ([Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , Yan calculates an evaluation value to measure the spatial coherence (i.e., correlation) of the echo signals across the transducer elements. Specifically, Yan calculates the GSF. The GCF is computed by taking the discrete Fourier Transform of the signal data and finding the ratio between the lower-frequency power and the total power. A high GCF value indicates a strong spatial coherence (i.e., main lobe), while a low GCF indicates poor correlation (i.e., clutter or noise)).
Yan fails to explicitly disclose a processing circuitry to perform these exact computational functions.
However, Ziv-Ari in the context of methods and system for ultrasound data processing disclose: the processing circuitry (back end 103, [0043], ‘The front end 101 is connected to a back end 103 via a plurality of data channels that communicate channel ultrasound data from the front end 101 to the back end 103. The back end 103 generally includes a software implemented beamformer and an IQ/RF processor as described in more detail below. These processing functions may be performed by a central processing unit (CPU), a general processing unit (GPU) or any type of programmable processor.’; [0045], ‘It should be noted that the beamformer 110 is configured to perform basic beamforming as described herein an advanced beamformer 111 also is provided to performed advanced beamforming as described herein. The beamformers 110 and 111 may be implemented, for example, in the same software. The beamformed ultrasound data (also referred to as beamform data) also may be stored in the memory 105 or a memory 122.’; [0049], ‘The real-time processing controller module 130 connected to the processor 116 may be software running on the processor 116 or hardware provided as part of the processor 116. The real-time processing controller module 130 controls the software beamforming as described in more detail herein.’)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of modified Yan to include a processing circuitry as taught by Ziv-Ari. The motivation to do this yields predictable results such as improved image quality using processing, such as beamforming that otherwise could not be performed using an ultrasound system based on the processing power or capabilities of that system, as suggested by Ziv-Ari, [0021].
Examiners Notes
Claims 3-7, though rejected under 35 U.S.C § 101 are not rejected under the prior arts. The claims are statutorily ineligible for indication of allowable subject matter. Note; a change in scope in view of the requested corrections will require further search and consideration.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
(First Rejection):
Claim 1, 3-4, & 8-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1-5 of patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and processing circuitry, (Claim 1, “An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and
processing circuitry, wherein”)
wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to (Claim 1, ‘the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to”)
perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and (Claim 1, “perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and”)
perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and (Claim 1, “perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and”)
the processing circuitry is configured to (Claim 1, “the processing circuitry is configured to”)
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from mutually different transducer elements included in the plurality of transducer elements, and (Claim 1, “calculate an evaluation value of spatial correlation of the reflected wave signals, and” & Claim 4, “The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements.”) patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) establishes the evaluation of the spatial correlation of the reflected waves signals are output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive the reflected waves. In the second beamforming process, it uses signals output from the first transducer elements and two or more second transducer elements that are different from the first transducer element, noting that both the first and second elements are included in the plurality of transducer elements.)
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (Claim 1, “perform third beamforming processing that combines a first processing result and a second processing result based on a combination ratio according to the evaluation value, the first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, the second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”)
Claim 3 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the third beamforming processing that combines the first processing result and the second processing result based on a combination ratio based on the evaluation value. (Claim 1, “perform third beamforming processing that combines a first processing result and a second processing result based on a combination ratio according to the evaluation value, the first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, the second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”)
Claim 4 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the third beamforming processing such that the second processing result accounts for a larger ratio in a ratio between the first processing result and the second processing result as the evaluation value indicating the correlation increases. (Claim 2, “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the third beamforming processing such that the second processing result accounts for a larger ratio in a ratio between the first processing result and the second processing result as the evaluation value of the spatial correlation increases.”
Claim 8 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the first beamforming processing in a phase-additive method by delaying the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adding the delayed reflected wave signals together. (Claim 3, “3. The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the first beamforming processing in a phase-additive method by delaying the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adding the delayed reflected wave signals together.”)
Claim 9 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements. (Claim 4, “The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements.”)
Claim 10 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing in at least one of a delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method, a minimum variance method, and a coherence factor beamforming method. (Claim 5, “The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing in at least one of a delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method, a minimum variance method, and a coherence factor beamforming method.)
Claim 11 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, An image processing apparatus comprising: processing circuitry configured to (Claim 1, “An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and processing circuitry, [...] the processing circuitry is configured to”)
perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, (Claim 1, “perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and”)
perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, (Claim 1, “perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and”)
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements different from each other, and (Claim 1, “calculate an evaluation value of spatial correlation of the reflected wave signals, and” & Claim 4, “The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the second beamforming processing by delaying each of the reflected wave signals corresponding to the reflected waves in accordance with a delay time from generation of the ultrasonic waves to reception of the reflected waves corresponding to the ultrasonic waves by each of the plurality of transducer elements and adjusting amplitude of the reflected wave signals output from a first transducer element by each of the reflected wave signals output from two or more second transducer elements different from the first transducer element, the first transducer element and the two or more second transducer elements being included in the plurality of transducer elements.”) patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) establishes the evaluation of the spatial correlation of the reflected waves signals are output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive the reflected waves. In the second beamforming process, it uses signals output from the first transducer elements and two or more second transducer elements that are different from the first transducer element, noting that both the first and second elements are included in the plurality of transducer elements.)
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (Claim 1, “perform third beamforming processing that combines a first processing result and a second processing result based on a combination ratio according to the evaluation value, the first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, the second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”)
Claim 2 & 12 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 1 of patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217), as applied to claim 1 and 11, respectively, in further view of Yan et al ("Regional-Lag Signed Delay Multiply and Sum Beamforming in Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging," in IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 580-591, Published on November 12 2021). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 2 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches:
The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to (Claim 1, “the processing circuitry is configured to”
patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) fails to teach:
calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and
perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result.
However, Yan in the context of delay multiple and sum beamforming in ultrafast ultrasound imaging discloses, calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result. Yan teaches calculating the evaluation value for individual pixels and performing the third beamforming process on each of those pixels based on the evaluation value and the results from the first and second beamforming process. Yan teaches that the signal processing model is executed on a per-pixel basis, (i.e., wave compounding the echo signals received by the transducer for a single pixel into the 2D matrix [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581]), also see “Compounding is a common method for reducing noise and improving signal quality. Based on this, we first implement the precompounding of the signal. As shown in (1), the average of the transmit dimension in X(n ) is calculated as the signal vector to be beamformed, which can be described by (3). A more accurate and robust GCF is then estimated using the compounded signal, as illustrated in Section II.”- [III. Methods / pg. 582], . ¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [III. Methods / pg. 582], [C. Simulated Cyst / pg 584-585], [E. Experimental Cyst Phantom / pg. 587], GCF (i.e., the evaluation value) is derived from this data matrix of a single pixel, the valuation is calculated pixel-by-pixel to act as a region discrimination tool, which is designed to classify the echo signals into different target regions. Hence, the pixel is determined to belong to a specific region such as a large GCF or small GCF. Furthermoe, the subsequent beamforming outputs would also be generated for that specific pixel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) to be configured calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result as taught by Yan. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving ultrafast ultrasound imaging, as suggested by Yan, ¶Abstract.
Claim 12 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches:
The image processing apparatus according to claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to (Claim 1, “the processing circuitry is configured to”
patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) fails to teach:
calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and
perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result.
However, Yan in the context of delay multiple and sum beamforming in ultrafast ultrasound imaging discloses, calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result. Yan teaches calculating the evaluation value for individual pixels and performing the third beamforming process on each of those pixels based on the evaluation value and the results from the first and second beamforming process. Yan teaches that the signal processing model is executed on a per-pixel basis, (i.e., wave compounding the echo signals received by the transducer for a single pixel into the 2D matrix [A. Mathematical model of plane wave compounding / pg. 581]), also see “Compounding is a common method for reducing noise and improving signal quality. Based on this, we first implement the precompounding of the signal. As shown in (1), the average of the transmit dimension in X(n ) is calculated as the signal vector to be beamformed, which can be described by (3). A more accurate and robust GCF is then estimated using the compounded signal, as illustrated in Section II.”- [III. Methods / pg. 582], . ¶Abstract, [Introduction / pg 580-581], [III. Methods / pg. 582], [C. Simulated Cyst / pg 584-585], [E. Experimental Cyst Phantom / pg. 587], GCF (i.e., the evaluation value) is derived from this data matrix of a single pixel, the valuation is calculated pixel-by-pixel to act as a region discrimination tool, which is designed to classify the echo signals into different target regions. Hence, the pixel is determined to belong to a specific region such as a large GCF or small GCF. Furthermore, the subsequent beamforming outputs would also be generated for that specific pixel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) to be configured calculate the evaluation value for each of pixels corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and perform the third beamforming processing on each of the pixels based on the evaluation value, the first processing result, and the second processing result as taught by Yan. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving ultrafast ultrasound imaging, as suggested by Yan, ¶Abstract.
(Second Rejection):
Claim 1, 5-6 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over Claims 6-7 of patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) in view of Yan et al ("Regional-Lag Signed Delay Multiply and Sum Beamforming in Ultrafast Ultrasound Imaging," in IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control, vol. 69, no. 2, pp. 580-591, Published on November 12 2021). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
Claim 1 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and processing circuitry, (Claim 6, ‘An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves; and processing circuitry,”)
wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to (Claim 6, “wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to”)
perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and (Claim 6, “perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals”)
the processing circuitry is configured to (Claim 6, “the processing circuitry is configured to”)
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals (Claim 6, “calculate an evaluation value of spatial correlation of the reflected wave signals, and”), and
perform third beamforming processing based on the evaluation value, a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, and a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (Claim 6, “perform third beamforming processing that, based on a combination ratio according to the evaluation value, combines a first processing result to which a weighting factor has been applied and a second processing result to which the weighting factor has been applied, the first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, the second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”)
patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) fails to disclose in claim 6, “output from mutually different transducer elements included in the plurality of transducer elements”
However, Yan in the context of delay multiple and sum beamforming in ultrafast ultrasound imaging discloses, “output from mutually different transducer elements included in the plurality of transducer elements” ([Introduction / pg 580-581], [FIG 1 / pg. 582], [C. Generalized Coherence Factor / pg. 528], [III. Methods / pg. 582], , Yan calculates an evaluation value to measure the spatial coherence (i.e., correlation) of the echo signals across the transducer elements. Specifically, Yan calculates the GSF. The GCF is computed by taking the discrete Fourier Transform of the signal data and finding the ratio between the lower-frequency power and the total power. A high GCF value indicates a strong spatial coherence (i.e., main lobe), while a low GCF indicates poor correlation (i.e., clutter or noise))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the processing circuitry of patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) to be configured to output from mutually different transducer elements included in the plurality of transducer elements as taught by Yan. The motivation to do this yield predictable results such as improving ultrafast ultrasound imaging, as suggested by Yan, ¶Abstract.
Claim 5 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform the third beamforming processing such that, based on a combination ratio based on the evaluation value, combines the first processing result to which a weighting factor has been applied and the second processing result to which the weighting factor has been applied. (Claim 6, “perform third beamforming processing that, based on a combination ratio according to the evaluation value, combines a first processing result to which a weighting factor has been applied and a second processing result to which the weighting factor has been applied, the first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing, the second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”)
Claim 6 of the instant application 19/255,201: patent US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) teaches, The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive an input of an adjustment parameter for the weighting factor. (Claim 7, “wherein the processing circuitry is configured to receive an input of an adjustment parameter for the weighting factor.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nicholas Robinson whose telephone number is (571)272-9019. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00AM-5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached 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.
/N.A.R./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights