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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 08/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 2-3 are cancelled, and claims 1 and 4-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/13/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 08/12/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Shin is being relied upon to teach dependent claim 8 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claims 1 and 4, reference to Ustuner is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 4 and 7 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
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 factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 5, and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over R. Ali, "Fourier-based Synthetic-aperture Imaging for Arbitrary Transmissions by Cross-correlation of Transmitted and Received Wave-fields", Ultrasonic Imaging,vol.43, no. 5, pp. 282-294, 2021 in view of Shin (JP 2017000372 A, published January 5, 2017), Tsushima (US 20200015788 A1, published January 16, 2020), and Tashiro (US 20120035477 A1, published February 9, 2012), hereinafter referred to as Ali, Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 9 and 10, Ali teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, comprising:
a transmitter circuit configured to transmit an ultrasonic wave into a subject, based on a transmission condition, and a receiver circuit configured to receive an echo from inside the subject (see pg. 284, col. 1, para. 2 "Table 3 summarizes the walking-aperture focused-transmit sequence implemented on a Siemens research scanner with an L10-4 probe. Radiofrequency channel data were acquired in vivo from the thyroid and carotid of a healthy human volunteer..." scanner inherently includes transmission and reception circuits); and
a processing circuit (see pg. 284, col. 1, para. 2 "Table 3 summarizes the walking-aperture focused-transmit sequence implemented on a Siemens research scanner..." scanner inherently includes processing circuit) configured to
cause the ultrasonic wave transmitted based on the transmission condition to propagate forward to obtain a transmission wave field (Fig. 1, transmitted wavefield; see pg. 284, col. 2, para. 3 "The transmitted wave-field propagates into the medium..."),
cause a signal based on the echo to propagate backward to obtain a reception wave field by applying a weight function (Fig. 1, backpropagated received signals; Table 1, “Transmit apodization” as weight function; see pg. 284, col. 2, para. 3 " the receive wave-field, which was back propagated into the medium, travels upward toward the transducer."; see pg. 283, col. 2, para. 3 "Radio frequency channel data for the walking aperture focused-transmit sequence described in Table 1 was simulated in Field Il 25,26 for a medium of random diffuse point scatterers whose reflectivities were modified to simulate anechoic lesions and point targets in a uniform speckle background."), and
perform correlation analysis between the transmission wave field and the reception wave field to generate an echo component (see Fig. 1 "The time-domain cross correlation of complex-valued transmit and receive wave-fields creates the ultrasound image prior to amplitude detection and display on a decibel scale...").
Ali teaches applying a weight function, but does not explicitly teach applying a weight function depending on a wavefront incident angle at a shallow region and at a deep region.
Whereas, Shin, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches applying a weight function depending on a wavefront incident angle at a shallow region and at a deep region (see pg. 14, para. 7 – “Specifically, in the acoustic ray frame data, the weight of the data element belonging to the region where the distance from the acoustic element is close and the depth is shallow is such that the value increases as the transmission angle increases. , y). For the data element belonging to the far region where the distance from the acoustic element is short, the value of Weight (x, y) is determined so that the value increases as the transmission angle decreases.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified applying a weight function, as disclosed in Ali, by applying a weight function depending on a wavefront incident angle at a shallow region and at a deep region, as disclosed in Shin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to keep the S/N ratio in deeper portions among end portions of an internal space of a subject and at the same time improving the resolution in other portions, as taught in Shin (see Abstract).
Ali in view of Shin teaches applying a weighting function to a shallow region based on wavefront incident angle, but does not explicitly teach the weighting function is where a weight for a smaller wavefront incident angle is greater than a weight for a larger wavefront incident angle.
Whereas, Tsushima, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a weight for a smaller wavefront incident angle (center of aperture) is greater than a weight for a larger wavefront incident angle (edge of aperture) (in order to view near field; Fig. 4; see para. 0091 – “The weight sequence indicates weights that are distributed symmetrically with respect to the transmission focal point F...The weight sequence is set so that the maximum weight is set with respect to the reception transducer element located at the center position of the reception aperture Rx in the transducer element array direction, and the central axis of the weight distribution corresponds to the center axis Rxo of the reception aperture Rx.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified applying a weighting function to a shallow region based on wavefront incident angle, as disclosed in Ali in view of Shin, by having the weighting function as where a weight for a smaller wavefront incident angle is greater than a weight for a larger wavefront incident angle, as disclosed in Tsushima. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to increase the S/N ratio of the reception signals received by the reception transducer elements, as taught in Tsushima (see para. 0092).
Ali in view of Shin and Tsushima teaches applying a weighting function to a deep region based on wavefront incident angle, but does not explicitly teach the weighting function is where a weight for the larger wavefront incident angle is greater than a weight for a same wavefront incident angle at the shallower position.
Whereas, Tashiro, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches a weight for the larger wavefront incident angle is greater than a weight for a same wavefront incident angle at the shallower position (in order to view far field; see para. 0063 – “As illustrated in FIG. 6A, in a region where the depth is in a range from the depth of the focal point 163 a to the depth of the focal point 165 a (a second region), the weight 168 a changes smoothly from 0 to 1...In other words, in the region from the depth of the focal point 163 a to the depth of the focal point 165 a, the weight of the second echo signal 166 is increased as the depth increases.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified applying a weighting function to a deep region based on wavefront incident angle, as disclosed in Ali in view of Shin and Tsushima, by having the weighting function as where a weight for the larger wavefront incident angle is greater than a weight for a same wavefront incident angle at the shallower position, as disclosed in Tashiro. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have a better image quality, as taught in Tashiro (see para. 0063).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Ali further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to select the signal based on the echo to be propagated backward in a process of generating the reception wave field, and the processing circuit is further configured to cause only the selected signal based on the echo to propagate backward to generate the reception wave field (see Fig. 1 "Shot-profile migration by time domain cross-correlation of transmit beam wave-field with the backpropagated wave-field for received signals.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Shin further teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to cause the signal based on the echo to propagate backward to obtain the reception wave field, based on the weight function depending on a positional relation between a point for which an image is obtained (pixel) and a point at which the echo has been received (transducer) (weight function depending on depth; see pg. 14, para. 7 – “Specifically, in the acoustic ray frame data, the weight of the data element belonging to the region where the distance from the acoustic element is close and the depth is shallow is such that the value increases as the transmission angle increases. , y). For the data element belonging to the far region where the distance from the acoustic element is short, the value of Weight (x, y) is determined so that the value increases as the transmission angle decreases.”).
The motivation for claim 8 was shown previously in claim 1.
Claims 4 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Ustuner et al. (US 20240085557 A1, published March 14, 2024), hereinafter referred to as Ustuner.
Regarding claim 4, Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro teaches applying a weight function, but does not explicitly teach where the weight function based on an imaginary reception aperture.
Whereas, Ustuner, in analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to set an imaginary reception aperture for each position to be imaged and determine the weight function based on the imaginary reception aperture (Fig. 5B; see para. 0069 – “...a step S910 of computing delays and weight for each transducer element and virtual element based on the adjusted transducer and virtual element coordinates and receive angle and focal depth...”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified applying a weight function, as disclosed in Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro, by having the weight function based on an imaginary reception aperture, as disclosed in Ustuner. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to form the dynamically focused receive beam, as taught in Ustuner (see para. 0069).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Ustuner further teaches wherein the wavefront incident angle represents an incident direction of a wavefront when back propagation simulation is performed on the signal based on the echo (Fig. 5B; see para. 0069 – “...the dynamically focused receive beam may be formed...a step S910 of computing delays and weight for each transducer element and virtual element based on the adjusted transducer and virtual element coordinates and receive angle and focal depth...”).
The motivation for claim 7 was shown previously in claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Huang etal. (US 20140364737 A1, published December 11, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Huang.
Regarding claim 6, Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro teaches obtaining transmission and reception wave fields, but does not explicitly teach obtaining the wave fields based on wave equations.
Whereas, Huang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to: obtain the transmission wave field by numerical analysis based on a wave equation, or obtain the reception wave field by numerical analysis based on a wave equation. (Fig. 14; see para. 0107 "A high order finite-difference time domain wave-equation algorithm in accordance with step 206 was used to compute ultrasound transmission and reflection data.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified obtaining transmission and reception wave fields, as disclosed in Ali in view of Shin, Tsushima, and Tashiro, by obtaining the wave fields based on wave equations, as disclosed in Huang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to have image reconstruction performed by computing the wave acoustic wave properties of the data by calculating the mean square difference between the observed and syn thetic waveforms, as taught in Huang (see para. 0113).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Nishigaki (US 20060058669 A1, published March 16, 2006) discloses the reception focus position is made further away from the transmitted beam at the transmission focus depth d1 and is made closer to the transmitted beam in areas shallower and deeper than the depth d1, and thereby makes the shapes of the first and the Second composite beams Straight lines, thereby preventing the Stripe patterns in the display image from being generated and enabling a preferable image quality with reduced image distortion to be obtained.
Smith et al. (US 20030144591 A1, published July 31, 2003) discloses the applied amplitudes of the apodization function approximate a raised cosine function which ranges in value between about 0.0 (applied to the ultrasound transducer elements located near the outer edge (or edges) of the sub-aperture, to about 1.0 (applied to the ultrasound transducer elements located near the center of the sub-aperture).
Tanaka et al. (US 20220249062 A1, published August 11, 2022) discloses in the first depth region 10a where the depth in the subject is shallow, the weight of the first received beam signal or the first frame data is set to be larger than the weight of the second received beam signal or the second frame data. Further, in the second depth region 11a where the depth in the subject is large or in a deeper region, the weight of the second received beam signal or the second frame data is set to be larger than the weight of the first received beam signal or the first frame data (Fig. 3).
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 Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
