DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to communications filed on 08/06/2026. Claims 1 & 11-12 have been amended. Claims 3-7 canceled. Presently, Claims 1-2 & 8-12 remain pending and are hereinafter examined on the merits.
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 (IDS) submitted on 06/30/2025 was filed before the mailing date of the Non-Final Rejection on 05/06/20526. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has been considered by the examiner.
Response to Arguments
Previous claim objections to the Abstract are withdrawn in view of the amendments filed on 08/06/2026.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 101 have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
Firstly, the abstract idea has been identified as the following at STEP 2A 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 the plurality of transducer elements, 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
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or 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
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.”
Upon review of the specification, in summary, the first beamforming process of the Applicant’s invention is described as the DAS method. This is the standard Delay and Sum method. The Applicant’s specification describe this computationally as an phase additive method, where the system calculates a specific delay time to match the phases of the reflected waves signals and then mathematically adds the signals up, ¶0024, ¶0025. While the second beamforming process of the Applicant’s invention is described as the DMAS method. This is described as the standard adaptive beamforming Delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method, ¶0028. This involves mathematical equations, which the Applicant’s own specification describes as a mathematical formula, see ¶0029-0030 (equations (1) & (2)), where the processing circuitry multiples the amplitude of data from one element by another, calculates the square root of the absolute values, and then sums those results together, ¶0029-0030. Regarding the evaluation value, this process is described by the Applicant’s specification as a algorithmic measure of spatial correlations of signals using formulas, see the specification ¶0061. This equation calculates the value by taking the squared absolute value of the cross-multiplied signals and divides it by the sum their individual square absolute values. Indeed, this is a mathematical process that does not hesitate to include an additional mathematical process of a third beamforming process. Although the claims no longer recite the third beamforming process, it is worth noting on the record that the third beamforming process is an act of combining the DAS and DMAS results. The act of combining the DAS and DMAS results as detailed in equation 4 of paragraph ¶0065-0066 of the Applicant’s specification, is a mathematical equation. The equation 4 mathematically multiples the first processing result by a specific weighting factor, multiplies the second processing result by another weighting factor and adds them together to generate the final output.
Accordingly, even in view of the Applicant’s specification, it precisely confirms that the identified abstract idea above and herein falls squarely in line with adding, multiplying, computing fractions, and algorithmically weighting the signal data, which is a mathematical process from start to finish.
Upon review of what is claimed, the Applicant’s are claiming a mental and mathematical process which recites and has been identified as the above highlighted Abstract idea.
Regarding the August 2025 Deputy Commission Memorandum as cited by the Applicant, for the principles that examiners should not exceed the mental process category to limitation that cannot practically be performed in the human mind. In response, the memo was only intended as a reminder with respect to the emerging technologies. This reminder memo is not intended to announce any new practice or procedure and is meant to be consistent with existing guidance. The Examiner agrees with these principles outlined by the reminder memo and is applied herein.
The Applicant’s contends that the claims cannot recite a mental process because the claimed beamforming and signal processing operations cannot be practically performed in the mind. This is not persuasive because the allege multi-channeling and reception timing, phase, amplitude or the like are not commensurate within the scope of the claims. Claim 1 & 11 broadly recite first and second beamforming processing and calculating an evaluation value indicating correlation amount the reflected wave signals, and selecting one of the processing results based on the evaluation value. The claims do not require anything in particular or specific. Thus the Applicant’s arguments relies on a degree of computational complexity that is not required by the claims. The recited evaluation and selection are stated at a high level of generality and encompass evaluation and correlation based on that evaluation. Such activities as generically recited in the claim can indeed be practically performed in the human mind. The fact that the claims require circuitry to performed these broad recited functions does not, by itself, prevent the claims from reciting a mental process. Accordingly, the reliance on the Memorandum does not establish that the claims as recited fall outside the mental process grouping.
The claims additionally recite a mathematical concept. In particular the claims requires calculating the an evaluation value. The Applicant’s reliance on example 38 is misplaced. The claims as recited require a calculation of a value representing a mathematical relationship between data. Accordingly, the claims recite a mathematical process. In addition, the broadly recited required first and second beamforming process and as described in the Applicant’s specification support that the data values of the signal are mathematically computed to produce a result. The claims are substantially broader than what is recited in the claims and do not require particulars and amount to requiring mathematical manipulation of data to obtain results.
The claims require two different beamforming and selection between their results based upon an evaluation value. They do not require any particular beamforming technique, a specific criteria, or the circumstances under which one beamforming result is selected instead of the other. Thus the claims do not reflect any particular technological solution relied upon by the Applicant’s arguments, but instead encompass a result of evaluating correlation and selecting between results based upon the evaluation.
Applicant further argues that the processing circuitry should be considered in isolation. The Examiner agrees that the claims should be considered as a whole. When so considered; however, the transmitting/receiving circuitry and processing circuitry provide merely the technological in which the evaluation and mathematical process and selection is performed. Simply 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 Applicant argues Kiyose does not establish that the entire ordered combination of performing two different beamforming process and selection between their results based upon the evaluation value was well-understood, routine, and conventional. The applicant’s characterization of what is required here is misplaced. Kiyose is relied upon as evidence that the ultrasonic transmitting/receiving circuitry and signal processing circuitry constitutes well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. There is no requirement that judicial exception itself be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity. Accordingly, these additional claimed circuitry amounts to conventional components used to obtain the data and performed the recited abstract processing and therefore does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Accordingly, the 35 USC § 101 rejection is maintained.
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under 35 USC § 103 have been fully, considered.
However, upon further search and consideration the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely 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) as applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The new grounds of rejection now relies on:
Claims 1, 8, & 11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)).
Claims 2 & 12 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)), as applied to claim 1 and 11, in further view of Vignon et al (US 20200202518 A1)
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)), 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).
The Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejections under Double Patent Rejection have been fully, considered, but are not persuasive.
However, upon further search and consideration the Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217), in view of Yan.
The new grounds of rejection now relies on:
Claim 1 & 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), in view of Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
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), in view of Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)), in further view of Vignon et al (US 20200202518 A1). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other.
The Examiner encourages filing the e-Terminal disclaimer.
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 1-2, 8-12 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 1-2, 8-12 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 the plurality of transducer elements, 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
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or 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
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or 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 equations of a first beamforming processing, and second beamforming processing rely on formal calculations such as combining, comparing, and transforming values according to relationships. The subsequent step of selecting or performing 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 11 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 by a plurality of transducer elements; and processing circuitry, wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to [...] wherein 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”, & “wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to”, respectively, 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 by a plurality of transducer elements; 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’
As an evidence, Rosenburg (US 20100004536 A1) discloses:
¶0018, ‘It is well known in the art that almost all types of ultrasound transducers can be used for both transmitting and receiving ultrasound energy.’
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 pixel corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result. (claim 2).
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 pixel corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or 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 § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 8, & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)).
Claim 1: Albulayli discloses: An ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: (Title: “Evaluation of Hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based Beamforming Methods Applied to Ultrasound imaging”)
transmitting and receiving circuitry configured to transmit and receive ultrasonic waves by a plurality of transducer elements; and (2.1 Ultrasound System, pg. 6-8, teaches the hardware components on both transmit and receive circuitry side of the US system. During transmission it utilizes A DAC and HV amplifies to drive the transducer elements. During reception, the returning echoes pass through the TR switches, LNAs, and TGC, and ADCs. The system uses a one-dimensional array or transducer elements.)
processing circuitry, (The system includes downstream processing block, logarithmic compression, a scan converter, and a post processor. These blocks along with the digital adders and multipliers that carry out the beamforming the coherence factor calculations collectively constitute as processing circuitry, see 2.1 Ultrasound System, pg. 6-8.)
wherein the transmitting and receiving circuitry is configured to perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements, and perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, and (There are two distinct beamforming processes performed on the received echoes. In particular, Albulayli teaches a first beamforming process and a second beamforming process that is different from the first beamforming process. Thus, teaching that claimed first and second beamforming process, see ¶Abstract, page 4 – the main idea, 2.1, Ultrasound System, pg. 6-8, 2.3 Beamformer pg. 10-11, 2.5 Our Contribution pg. 21-22. Because the claim generically recites a first beamforming process and a second beamforming process without any particular beamforming technique, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Albulayli teachings is relied upon for its disclosure of two distinct beamforming techniques for processing received echoes, irrespective of the particular beamforming algorithms used to perform those process. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Albulayli performs first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements, and perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, as required by the claim.)
wherein 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 (The evaluation value is the coherence factor, see ¶Abstract, 2.5 Our Contribution pg. 21-22. The coherence factor is defined as equation (2.12), 2.32 Coherence Facotr pg. 12-13. Xi[n] represents the reflected wave signals from each transducer element. The cross-product measures the spatial correlation amount the signals output from the mutually different transducer elements. The CF is the indicator of signal coherence across the array aperture to identify received energy as either main lobe or off-axis sidelobes.)
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (The evaluation value calculated is the coherence factor. The main idea taught by Albulayli states, on page 4: “our approach to combining a non-adaptive beamformer with an adaptive one is based on the use of the data-dependent variable known as the coherence factor. The resulting hybrid beamforming method can be summarized as follows: For each input snapshot to be beamformed, calculate the corresponding coherence factor; if the coherence factor is below a certain threshold, use non-adaptive DAS beamforming, otherwise use adaptive (GSC-based or ASSB-based) beamforming. We have applied this simple switching scheme to the simulated B-mode ultrasound images of the 12-point and point-scatterer-cyst phantoms that are commonly used in the ultrasound imaging literature to evaluate the image quality [...]”. See pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution], ‘Our simple approach is based on switching between a non-adaptive beamformer and an adaptive one based on the CF value. For each input vector, we calculate the corresponding CF and compare it to a certain threshold TCF. If CF < TCF, we use non-adaptive DAS beamforming; otherwise, we use adaptive MVDR beamforming implemented by the Generalized Sidelobe Canceller (GSC) presented in Chapter 3.’ - The coherence factor on page 12 at 2.3.2 equation 2.12 is the ratio of a coherent sum squared to an incoherent sum of the input vector across the elements of the transducer array. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the numerator of this ratio, when expanded, contains cross-multiplication between the signals from the different transducer elements. This directly represents the spatial correlation or phase coherence of the reflected wave signals across mutually different elements of the array. Furthermore, Albulayli, proposes at 3.2 pg. 26 that the coherence factor provides the spatial characteristics of the received signals, where a high CF indicates most of the receive energy is in the mainlobe region and low CF values indicate that most of the energy is in the side lobes. In such situations the use of the CF value for a given input provides a selection on the use of adaptive versus nonadaptive beamforming. The first beamforming process of Albulayli is the DAS method, while the second beamforming process is the adaptive beamforming method, thereby demonstrating a first and second beamforming process. For each input vector the coherence factor CF[n] is computed and compared to a threshold TCF, [3.2 proposed method pg. 26. Regarding the selection, if the coherence factor is below the threshold, the system selects the non-adaptive DAS beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]), otherwise, if the coherence factor is equal to or greater than the threshold, the system selects the adaptive beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]). Accordingly, Albulayli is relied upon to teach select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing, as required by the claim.
Claim 8: Albulayli discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Albulayli discloses: 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. (Albulayli teaches the first beam forming process as a conventional Delay and Sum (DAS), ¶Abstract, 2.1 Ultrasound System pg. 6-7, the delays and sums of the received signals are applied to equalize the phases of the signals, under the broadest reasonable interpretation this constitutes a phase-additive method. Wherein the received beamforming block is supplied with the received wave signals, where it applies set delays to the signals. The received time delays are determined based on distance traveled to the ROI and a particular sensor of the transducer array [introduction pg.1-5)
Claim 11: Albulayli discloses: An image processing apparatus comprising: : (Title: “Evaluation of Hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based Beamforming Methods Applied to Ultrasound imaging”)
processing circuitry configured to (The system includes downstream processing block, logarithmic compression, a scan converter, and a post processor. These blocks along with the digital adders and multipliers that carry out the beamforming the coherence factor calculations collectively constitute as processing circuitry, see 2.1 Ultrasound System, pg. 6-8.)
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, (There are two distinct beamforming processes performed on the received echoes. In particular, Albulayli teaches a first beamforming process and a second beamforming process that is different from the first beamforming process. Thus, teaching that claimed first and second beamforming process as claimed, see ¶Abstract, page 4 – the main idea, 2.1, Ultrasound System, pg. 6-8, 2.3 Beamformer pg. 10-11, 2.5 Our Contribution pg. 21-22. Because the claim generically recites a first beamforming process and a second beamforming process without any particular beamforming technique, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Albulayli teachings is relied upon for its disclosure of two distinct beamforming techniques for processing received echoes, irrespective of the particular beamforming algorithms used to perform those process. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Albulayli performs first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements, and perform second beamforming processing different from the first beamforming processing on the reflected wave signals, as required by the claim.)
calculate an evaluation value indicating correlation among the reflected wave signals output from the plurality of transducer elements different from each other, and (The evaluation value is the coherence factor, see ¶Abstract, 2.5 Our Contribution pg. 21-22. The coherence factor is defined as equation (2.12), 2.32 Coherence Facotr pg. 12-13. Xi[n] represents the reflected wave signals from each transducer element. The cross-product measures the spatial correlation amount the signals output from the mutually different transducer elements. The CF is the indicator of signal coherence across the array aperture to identify received energy as either main lobe or off-axis sidelobes.)
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (The evaluation value calculated is the coherence factor. The main idea taught by Albulayli states, on page 4: “our approach to combining a non-adaptive beamformer with an adaptive one is based on the use of the data-dependent variable known as the coherence factor. The resulting hybrid beamforming method can be summarized as follows: For each input snapshot to be beamformed, calculate the corresponding coherence factor; if the coherence factor is below a certain threshold, use non-adaptive DAS beamforming, otherwise use adaptive (GSC-based or ASSB-based) beamforming. We have applied this simple switching scheme to the simulated B-mode ultrasound images of the 12-point and point-scatterer-cyst phantoms that are commonly used in the ultrasound imaging literature to evaluate the image quality [...]”. See pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution], ‘Our simple approach is based on switching between a non-adaptive beamformer and an adaptive one based on the CF value. For each input vector, we calculate the corresponding CF and compare it to a certain threshold TCF. If CF < TCF, we use non-adaptive DAS beamforming; otherwise, we use adaptive MVDR beamforming implemented by the Generalized Sidelobe Canceller (GSC) presented in Chapter 3.’ - The coherence factor on page 12 at 2.3.2 equation 2.12 is the ratio of a coherent sum squared to an incoherent sum of the input vector across the elements of the transducer array. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the numerator of this ratio, when expanded, contains cross-multiplication between the signals from the different transducer elements. This directly represents the spatial correlation or phase coherence of the reflected wave signals across mutually different elements of the array. Furthermore, Albulayli, proposes at 3.2 pg. 26 that the coherence factor provides the spatial characteristics of the received signals, where a high CF indicates most of the receive energy is in the mainlobe region and low CF values indicate that most of the energy is in the side lobes. In such situations the use of the CF value for a given input provides a selection on the use of adaptive versus nonadaptive beamforming. The first beamforming process of Albulayli is the DAS method, while the second beamforming process is the adaptive beamforming method, thereby demonstrating a first and second beamforming process. For each input vector the coherence factor CF[n] is computed and compared to a threshold TCF, [3.2 proposed method pg. 26. Regarding the selection, if the coherence factor is below the threshold, the system selects the non-adaptive DAS beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]), otherwise, if the coherence factor is equal to or greater than the threshold, the system selects the adaptive beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]). Accordingly, Albulayli is relied upon to teach select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing, as required by the claim.
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 2 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)), as applied to claim 1 and 11, in further view of Vignon et al (US 20200202518 A1).
Claim 2: Albulayli discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Albulayli fails to disclose: calculate the evaluation value for each pixel corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result.
However, Vignon in the context of ultrasound image generation discloses: calculate the evaluation value for each pixel (¶0013, ¶0025-0027, ¶0070-0071, ¶0092-0095) corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Vignon disclose a first and second beamforming process over a target pixel region, ¶0030, ¶0084-0085, a second beamforming. ¶0084-0088, ¶0095, the per-pixel evaluation is assessed directly on this alternative beamforming algorithm.) and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result (¶0116-0119 in either case, Vignon teaches selecting between different pixel-level processing results depending on whether the evaluation value crosses a predefined threshold. If above a given threshold, the system selects the first processing result. If below a given threshold the system selects the second processing result.).
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 calculation of the evaluation value of Albulayli to incorporate the teachings as taught by Vignon for the advantage of providing an improved system and method to produce a final image with maximum visibility and contrast as suggested by Vignon, ¶0115.
Claim 12: Albulayli discloses all the elements above in claim 11, Albulayli fails to disclose: calculate the evaluation value for each pixel corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result.
However, Vignon in the context of ultrasound image generation discloses: calculate the evaluation value for each pixel (¶0013, ¶0025-0027, ¶0070-0071, ¶0092-0095) corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Vignon disclose a first and second beamforming process over a target pixel region, ¶0030, ¶0084-0085, a second beamforming. ¶0084-0088, ¶0095, the per-pixel evaluation is assessed directly on this alternative beamforming algorithm.) and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result (¶0116-0119 in either case, Vignon teaches selecting between different pixel-level processing results depending on whether the evaluation value crosses a predefined threshold. If above a given threshold, the system selects the first processing result. If below a given threshold the system selects the second processing result.).
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 calculation of the evaluation value of Albulayli to incorporate the teachings as taught by Vignon for the advantage of providing an improved system and method to produce a final image with maximum visibility and contrast as suggested by Vignon, ¶0115.
Claims 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)), 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 9: Albulayli discloses all the elements above in claim 1, Albulayli fails to disclose: 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 second beamforming of Albulayli 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.
Claim 10: Albulayli discloses all the elements above in claim 9, Albulayli fails to disclose: wherein perform the second beamforming processing in at least one of a delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method
However, Hennersperger is relied upon above discloses, wherein perform the second beamforming processing in at least one of a delay-multiply-and-sum (DMAS) method (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 second beamforming of Albulayli 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.
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.
Claim 1 & 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), in view of Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)). 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 by a plurality of transducer elements; 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”; Claim 1, ‘perform first beamforming processing on reflected wave signals output from a plurality of transducer elements configured to receive reflected waves, and’)
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 the 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.)
US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217 fails to disclose: select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (The evaluation value calculated is the coherence factor. The main idea taught by Albulayli states, on page 4: “our approach to combining a non-adaptive beamformer with an adaptive one is based on the use of the data-dependent variable known as the coherence factor. The resulting hybrid beamforming method can be summarized as follows: For each input snapshot to be beamformed, calculate the corresponding coherence factor; if the coherence factor is below a certain threshold, use non-adaptive DAS beamforming, otherwise use adaptive (GSC-based or ASSB-based) beamforming. We have applied this simple switching scheme to the simulated B-mode ultrasound images of the 12-point and point-scatterer-cyst phantoms that are commonly used in the ultrasound imaging literature to evaluate the image quality [...]”. See pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution], ‘Our simple approach is based on switching between a non-adaptive beamformer and an adaptive one based on the CF value. For each input vector, we calculate the corresponding CF and compare it to a certain threshold TCF. If CF < TCF, we use non-adaptive DAS beamforming; otherwise, we use adaptive MVDR beamforming implemented by the Generalized Sidelobe Canceller (GSC) presented in Chapter 3.’ - The coherence factor on page 12 at 2.3.2 equation 2.12 is the ratio of a coherent sum squared to an incoherent sum of the input vector across the elements of the transducer array. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the numerator of this ratio, when expanded, contains cross-multiplication between the signals from the different transducer elements. This directly represents the spatial correlation or phase coherence of the reflected wave signals across mutually different elements of the array. Furthermore, Albulayli, proposes at 3.2 pg. 26 that the coherence factor provides the spatial characteristics of the received signals, where a high CF indicates most of the receive energy is in the mainlobe region and low CF values indicate that most of the energy is in the side lobes. In such situations the use of the CF value for a given input provides a selection on the use of adaptive versus nonadaptive beamforming. The first beamforming process of Albulayli is the DAS method, while the second beamforming process is the adaptive beamforming method, thereby demonstrating a first and second beamforming process. For each input vector the coherence factor CF[n] is computed and compared to a threshold TCF, [3.2 proposed method pg. 26. Regarding the selection, if the coherence factor is below the threshold, the system selects the non-adaptive DAS beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]), otherwise, if the coherence factor is equal to or greater than the threshold, the system selects the adaptive beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]). Accordingly, Albulayli is relied upon to teach select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing, as required by the claim.
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 beamforming process of US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) to select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing as taught by Albulayli for the advantage of providing an improved system and method to ultrasound imaging to evaluate performance using several switching thresholds associated with the coherence factor of the receive input vectors, as suggested by Albulayli pg. 22.
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.)
US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) fails to disclose: select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing.
select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing. (The evaluation value calculated is the coherence factor. The main idea taught by Albulayli states, on page 4: “our approach to combining a non-adaptive beamformer with an adaptive one is based on the use of the data-dependent variable known as the coherence factor. The resulting hybrid beamforming method can be summarized as follows: For each input snapshot to be beamformed, calculate the corresponding coherence factor; if the coherence factor is below a certain threshold, use non-adaptive DAS beamforming, otherwise use adaptive (GSC-based or ASSB-based) beamforming. We have applied this simple switching scheme to the simulated B-mode ultrasound images of the 12-point and point-scatterer-cyst phantoms that are commonly used in the ultrasound imaging literature to evaluate the image quality [...]”. See pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution], ‘Our simple approach is based on switching between a non-adaptive beamformer and an adaptive one based on the CF value. For each input vector, we calculate the corresponding CF and compare it to a certain threshold TCF. If CF < TCF, we use non-adaptive DAS beamforming; otherwise, we use adaptive MVDR beamforming implemented by the Generalized Sidelobe Canceller (GSC) presented in Chapter 3.’ - The coherence factor on page 12 at 2.3.2 equation 2.12 is the ratio of a coherent sum squared to an incoherent sum of the input vector across the elements of the transducer array. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the numerator of this ratio, when expanded, contains cross-multiplication between the signals from the different transducer elements. This directly represents the spatial correlation or phase coherence of the reflected wave signals across mutually different elements of the array. Furthermore, Albulayli, proposes at 3.2 pg. 26 that the coherence factor provides the spatial characteristics of the received signals, where a high CF indicates most of the receive energy is in the mainlobe region and low CF values indicate that most of the energy is in the side lobes. In such situations the use of the CF value for a given input provides a selection on the use of adaptive versus nonadaptive beamforming. The first beamforming process of Albulayli is the DAS method, while the second beamforming process is the adaptive beamforming method, thereby demonstrating a first and second beamforming process. For each input vector the coherence factor CF[n] is computed and compared to a threshold TCF, [3.2 proposed method pg. 26. Regarding the selection, if the coherence factor is below the threshold, the system selects the non-adaptive DAS beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]), otherwise, if the coherence factor is equal to or greater than the threshold, the system selects the adaptive beamforming result, (see page 4, 3.2 Proposed Method pg. 25-26, pg. 22 [2.5 Our Contribution]). Accordingly, Albulayli is relied upon to teach select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing, as required by the claim.
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 beamforming process of US No. 12343212B2 (U.S. Application 18/155,217) to select, based on the evaluation value, either a first processing result being a result of the first beamforming processing or a second processing result being a result of the second beamforming processing as taught by Albulayli for the advantage of providing an improved system and method to ultrasound imaging to evaluate performance using several switching thresholds associated with the coherence factor of the receive input vectors, as suggested by Albulayli pg. 22.
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), in view of Albulayli, Mohammed (“Evaluation of hybrid GSC-based and ASSB-based beamforming methods applied to ultrasound imaging.” (2012)), in further view of Vignon et al (US 20200202518 A1). 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 pixel corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result.
However, Vignon in the context of ultrasound image generation discloses: calculate the evaluation value for each pixel (¶0013, ¶0025-0027, ¶0070-0071, ¶0092-0095) corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Vignon disclose a first and second beamforming process over a target pixel region, ¶0030, ¶0084-0085, a second beamforming. ¶0084-0088, ¶0095, the per-pixel evaluation is assessed directly on this alternative beamforming algorithm.) and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result (¶0116-0119 in either case, Vignon teaches selecting between different pixel-level processing results depending on whether the evaluation value crosses a predefined threshold. If above a given threshold, the system selects the first processing result. If below a given threshold the system selects the second processing result.).
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 calculation of the evaluation value of Albulayli to incorporate the teachings as taught by Vignon for the advantage of providing an improved system and method to produce a final image with maximum visibility and contrast as suggested by Vignon, ¶0115.
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 pixel corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result.
However, Vignon in the context of ultrasound image generation discloses: calculate the evaluation value for each pixel (¶0013, ¶0025-0027, ¶0070-0071, ¶0092-0095) corresponding to a target region of the second beamforming processing, (Under the broadest reasonable interpretation Vignon disclose a first and second beamforming process over a target pixel region, ¶0030, ¶0084-0085, a second beamforming. ¶0084-0088, ¶0095, the per-pixel evaluation is assessed directly on this alternative beamforming algorithm.) and select, for each of the pixels, based on the evaluation value, either the first processing result or the second processing result (¶0116-0119 in either case, Vignon teaches selecting between different pixel-level processing results depending on whether the evaluation value crosses a predefined threshold. If above a given threshold, the system selects the first processing result. If below a given threshold the system selects the second processing result.).
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 calculation of the evaluation value of Albulayli to incorporate the teachings as taught by Vignon for the advantage of providing an improved system and method to produce a final image with maximum visibility and contrast as suggested by Vignon, ¶0115.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights