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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-10 in the reply filed on 6/16/2026 is acknowledged. Applicant's election with traverse of the species A and C in the same reply is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “The restriction requirement between Species A and Species B is improper because the claims are not directed to mutually exclusive species and instead recite overlapping aspects of a single disclosed inventive framework.” This is found persuasive, and the species restriction requirement has been withdrawn. Accordingly, claims 1-10 remain pending for examination on the merits. The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 3-4 and 6-7 is/are objected to because of informalities. Claim 3 and claims 4/6 do not use consistent terminology; the term ‘collocated’ in claim 3 should be consistent with the term ‘co-located’ used in claims 4 and 6. Claim 7 appears to contain a typographical error (“further comprising summing co-aligned-channel data sets”, hyphen between ‘channel’ and ‘aligned’) and should be amended. Appropriate correction is required.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not). The claims 3-6 are not provided in appropriate numerical order based on the claimed dependency and must be renumbered to provide a claim set in the correct order.
Claim(s) 5 and 8 recite(s) the limitation “such that […]”. It is suggested to replace the phrase “such that” with the term —wherein— to ensure the positive recitation of all elements in the claim. The use of the phrase “such that” may be interpreted as a negative limitation in the claim, resulting in an interpretation of subsequent limitations (i.e., “such that the plurality of channel data sets comprises sets of first polarity channel data and sets of second polarity channel data” in claim 5; and “such that the interpolated first data acquisition set and the interpolated second data acquisition set comprise the co-aligned channel data sets” in claim 8) as preferred or suggested limitations, and therefore may be excluded from examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim(s) 2-5 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 3-4 and 7-9 are also rejected at least by virtue of dependency upon a rejected base claim (claim 5).
Claim 2 recites the limitations “wherein remaining beams of the plurality of beams transmitted subsequent to the first beam and the second beam each include only a single pulse of either the first polarity or the second polarity, with pulses of the first polarity alternating with pulses of the second polarity”, which renders the claim indefinite and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is unclear what the ‘remaining beams’ are particularly referring to, because the ‘plurality of beams’ from claim 1 include a plurality of ‘first beams’ and a plurality of ‘second beams’; there is no definition or recitation of a ‘remaining beam’ distinct from the first or second beams. It is also unclear how the claim language further limits the limitations of claim 1, because in an interpretation the ‘plurality of beams’ transmitted in independent claim 1 already transmit alternating pulses of a first and second polarity.
Claim 5 recites the limitations “each channel data set formed from echoes produced as a result of a respective beam of the plurality of beams such that the plurality of channel data sets comprises sets of first polarity channel data and sets of second polarity channel data, splitting the plurality of channel data sets into a first data acquisition set comprising the sets of first polarity channel data and a second data acquisition set comprising the sets of second polarity channel data”, which renders the claim indefinite and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is not clear what the ‘echoes’ in the instant claim 5 are particularly referring to, because it is unclear if they are new ‘echoes’ or are pointing to the ‘echoes’ recited in claim 1. It is also not clear whether the ‘splitting’ step is an actual function separating the first and second polarity channel data or is merely describing the composition of the ‘plurality of channel data sets’. It is suggested to amend the claim to clearly point out how the ‘channel data’ is generated and from what specific source (e.g., the ‘first beams’ having a ‘first polarity’ may be used to generate first polarity channel data.
Claim 3 recites the limitations “adding beamforming delays, the first data acquisition set to form a secondary dataset of the first polarity on a first grid comprising a first plurality of locations, retrospectively focusing, by adding beamforming delays, the second data acquisition set to form a secondary dataset of the second polarity on a second grid comprising a second plurality of locations collocated with the first plurality of locations”, which renders the claim indefinite and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is not clear whether the ‘first plurality of locations’ and ‘second plurality of locations collocated with the first plurality of locations’ in the instant claim 3 are particularly referring to the ‘first location’ or ‘second location’ recited in claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitations “and wherein each respective MLA line is formed from echoes produced as a result of a respective beam of the plurality of beams”, which renders the claim indefinite and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. It is not clear what the ‘echoes’ produced from a ‘respective beam of the plurality of beams’ in the instant claim 6 are particularly referring to, because it is unclear if they are new ‘echoes’ or are pointing to the ‘echoes’ recited in claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitations “wherein summing the co-located receive MLA lines comprises forcing weights into each RTB output line to be equal for two outermost MLAs of each beam on each side, and for two innermost MLAs on each beam on each side, so that each MLA component with unique transmit-receive distance is weighted in with the same amount for the first and second polarities” which renders the claim indefinite and lacks sufficient antecedent basis. The use of the phrase ‘each beam on each side’ lacks antecedent basis because it is not certain what ‘beams’ are being pointed to; there are recitations of a ‘plurality of beams’ and of beams having a ‘first’ or ‘second’ polarity in the independent claim 1 which may be interpreted as ‘each beam on each side’, or ‘each beam on each side’ may be a new and distinct grouping of ‘beams’. Furthermore, it is not clear what ‘each side’ means in the context of the claim nor is it clear what the ‘amount’ actually is in the clause “each MLA component with unique transmit-receive distance is weighted in with the same amount”. The claim language must be amended to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim(s) 1 of the instant application US20250345034A1 (US19/274,197) is/are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim(s) 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12390189B2 (US17/236,930). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the additional language of the instant application
Regarding claim 1, US12390189B2 provides a method for ultrasound imaging (“A method for ultrasound imaging, the method comprising:” [clm 1]), the method comprising:
transmitting, via an ultrasound probe, a plurality of beams toward an imaging subject according to a pulse-inversion scheme (“transmitting, via an ultrasound probe, a plurality of beams toward an imaging subject according to a pulse-inversion scheme,” [clm 1]),
the plurality of beams including a first beam with only a single pulse of a first polarity transmitted at a first location and a first steering angle and a subsequent second beam with only a single pulse of a second, opposite polarity transmitted at a second location and a second steering angle (“the plurality of beams including a first beam with only a single pulse of a first polarity transmitted at a first steer angle and a subsequent second beam with only a single pulse of a second, opposite polarity transmitted at a second steer angle,” [clm 1]),
wherein one or more of (i) the first location is different than the second location and (ii) the first steering angle is different than the second steering angle (“wherein the second steer angle is different than the first steer angle, wherein each beam of the plurality of beams is transmitted at a different steer angle,” [clm 1]),
and wherein the first beam is one of a plurality of first beams of the plurality of beams, each first beam having the first polarity, and the second beam is one of a plurality of second beams of the plurality of beams, each second beam having the second polarity (“and wherein the first beam is one of a plurality of first beams of the plurality of beams, each first beam having the first polarity, and the second beam is one of a plurality of second beams of the plurality of beams, each second beam having the second polarity; and” [clm 1]); and
generating an ultrasound image of the imaging subject from echoes of the plurality of beams received at the ultrasound probe, including applying retrospective transmit techniques to reconstruct aligned data resulting from the plurality of first beams and the plurality of second beams and summing the aligned data to cancel a fundamental spectrum component (“generating an ultrasound image of the imaging subject from echoes of the plurality of beams received at the ultrasound probe, including applying retrospective transmit techniques to reconstruct aligned data resulting from the plurality of first beams and the plurality of second beams and summing the aligned data to cancel a fundamental spectrum component.” [clm 1]).
Although the above claims do not identically match claim language, the method for ultrasound imaging recited in claim 1 of the instant application US20250345034A1 is clearly anticipated by the method for ultrasound imaging recited in claim 1 of the US12390189B2 patent. While the claims may not be word for word as compared above (emphasized), the claim language is nearly verbatim between the two claim sets. The only discrepancy regards the transmission of ultrasound pulses at ‘first’ or ‘second locations’. However, the claim language in the instant application is not patentably distinct from the language provided in the US12390189B2 patent, because transmissions at different steering angles are inherently transmissions in distinct locations. The use of ‘first location and a first steering angle’ in the instant application US20250345034A1 is the same as the transmission along a ‘first steer angle’ in the US12390189B2 patent - the ‘steer angle’ of the US12390189B2 patent is analogous to the ‘steering angle’ in the instant application US20250345034A1.
The inventive concept of claim 1 of application US20250345034A1, a method for ultrasound imaging, is directly anticipated by the claim language recited in the US12390189B2 patent.
Regarding the dependent claims:
Claim 2 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 2 of US12390189B2.
Claim 3 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 3 of US12390189B2.
Claim 4 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 4 of US12390189B2.
Claim 5 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 5 of US12390189B2.
Claim 6 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 6 of US12390189B2.
Claim 7 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 7 of US12390189B2.
Claim 8 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 8 of US12390189B2.
Claim 9 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 9 of US12390189B2.
Claim 10 of the ‘034 application is rejected over claim 10 of US12390189B2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Zhang et al. (US20210000450A1, 2021-01-07) teaches ultrafast imaging with cascaded dual-polarity waves [0001].
Chiang et al. (US20190336101A1, 2019-11-07) teaches an ultrasound imaging method that utilizes two consecutive transmit waveforms; the first and second ultrasound pulses that are alternatively transmitted into the tissue being imaged [0269].
Sumi et al. (US20190129026A1, 2019-05-02) teaches a measurement and imaging instrument capable of beamforming with high speed and high accuracy without approximate calculation [abst]. To obtain the harmonic waves, the so-called pulse inversion method (transmissions of pulses with inverse polarities as an ultrasound parameters), etc. can be performed by superposing the received signals and similarly, the high-speed processing can be performed [0400].
Hwang (US6193662B1, 2001-02-27) teaches ultrasonic diagnostic imaging methods for producing harmonic ultrasonic images at high line densities or frame rates of display. Scanlines are received from spatially adjacent fundamental frequency transmit beams of opposite phase or polarity [abst].
Maxwell et al. (US20020128555A1, 2002-09-12) teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system and method for performing fundamental frequency and second harmonic frequency imaging simultaneously. Transmit bursts are employed which include a first waveform component optimized for fundamental imaging and a second waveform component optimized for harmonic imaging [abst].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James F. McDonald III whose telephone number is (571)272-7296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8AM-6PM 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, Chris Koharski can be reached at 5712727230. 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.
JAMES FRANKLIN MCDONALD III
Examiner
Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights