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 .
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.
Claims 21, 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9 of U.S. Patent No. 12,376,828. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims are broader than the claims in 828.
US 12,376,828
1 An apparatus, comprising: a handheld ultrasound probe wirelessly operatively couplable to a smartphone or tablet, the handheld ultrasound probe containing: an ultrasonic transducer array configured to selectively transmit ultrasound signals at any frequency from 1 MHz-12 MHz associated with a plurality of transducer elements and receive ultrasound signals reflected through a target tissue; one or more processing devices configured to, for a point in the target tissue: process a plurality of portions of received signals the point in the target tissue, wherein each of the plurality of portions is associated with grouped into a respective one of a plurality of sub-apertures of the transducer array, wherein the processing comprises: determining a respective coherent sum over each of the plurality of portions of the received signals for each sub-aperture; performing a processing operation over the respective coherent sum to obtain respective resulting data for each sub-aperture; normalizing the respective resulting data for a sub-aperture of the plurality of sub-apertures by an incoherent sum of the received ultrasound signals associated with the sub-aperture; and summing the normalized resulting data for the plurality of sub-apertures for imaging the target tissue.
9. A method of processing ultrasound signals received by an ultrasonic transducer array for imaging a target tissue, the method comprising, for a point in the target tissue: processing a plurality of portions of ultrasound signals associated with the point in the target tissue, wherein each of the plurality of portions is grouped into to a respective one of a plurality of sub-apertures of the transducer array, wherein the received ultrasound signals are each delayed by a respective delay time, and wherein the processing comprises: determining a respective coherent sum over each of the plurality of portions of the ultrasound signals for each sub-aperture; performing a processing operation over the respective coherent sum to obtain respective resulting data for each sub-aperture; and normalizing the respective resulting data for a sub-aperture of the plurality of sub-apertures by an incoherent sum of the received ultrasound signals associated with the sub-aperture; and determining output data for imaging the target tissue at the point by summing the normalized resulting data for the plurality of sub-apertures.
US 19/290,548
21. An ultrasound imaging system comprising: an ultrasonic transducer array comprising
a plurality of transducer elements configured to transmit and receive ultrasound signals reflected from a target tissue; and one or more processing devices configured to: group received ultrasound signals into a plurality of portions, each portion corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of sub-apertures of the ultrasonic transducer array;for each sub-aperture: determine a coherent sum of the portion of the received ultrasound signals;perform a processing operation on the coherent sum to obtain resulting data;normalize the resulting data using an incoherent sum of the ultrasound signals associated with the same sub-aperture;sum the normalized resulting data for the plurality of sub-apertures; and generate output data for imaging the target tissue.
A method for processing ultrasound signals received by an ultrasonic transducer array for imaging a target tissue, the method comprising:receiving ultrasound signals from a plurality of transducer elements;grouping received ultrasound signals into a plurality of portions, each portion corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of sub-apertures of the ultrasonic transducer array;for each sub-aperture:determining a coherent sum of the portion of the received ultrasound signals;performing a processing operation on the coherent sum to obtain resulting data; normalizing the resulting data using an incoherent sum of the ultrasound signals associated with the sub-aperture;summing the normalized resulting data for the plurality of sub-apertures; anddetermining output data for imaging the target tissue.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an astract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a method and apparatus; and therefore, is a method or system.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation steps of determine a coherent sum…performing a processing operation over the coherent sum of data and summing the resulting data.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind using just mathematical calculations as it is regarding a concept coherent sum of data.
That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper.
Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea using mathematical calculations.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “sending and receiving ultrasound signal”
Sending and Receiving data as claimed is a presolution insignificant activity; which is a data gathering step which is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity.
The use of a computer/controller/memory to implement the method does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as itis merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements (the handheld probe, the ultrasonic transducer) taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, the claims are ineligible. The same concept applies to the dependent claims in that they fail to further provide to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
Claim(s) 21-25, 27-33, 35-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Call et al. (US 2013/0253325, hereinafter Call).
With respect to claims 21, 31 Call discloses a method of processing ultrasound signals received by an ultrasonic transducer array for imaging a target tissue, the method comprising, for a point in the target tissue: (see para. 0009 “A method of forming an ultrasound image is provided, the method comprising transmitting an unfocused first circular wave front ultrasound signal into a region of interest from a first transmit aperture and receiving echoes of the first circular wave front ultrasound signal at a first receive aperture to form a first image layer, transmitting an unfocused second circular wave front ultrasound signal into a region of interest from a second transmit aperture and receiving echoes of the second circular wave front ultrasound signal at the first receive aperture to form a second image layer, applying a weighting factor to at least one pixel of the first image layer to obtain a modified first image layer, and combining the modified first image layer with the second image layer to form a combined image”.);
processing a plurality of portions of ultrasound signals associated with the point in the target tissue, wherein each of the plurality of portions corresponds to a respective one of a plurality of sub-apertures of the transducer array, wherein the received ultrasound signals are each delayed by a respective delay time, and wherein the processing comprises (see para. 0091, “In some embodiments of multiple aperture imaging with point-source transmission, receive beamforming comprises forming a pixel of a reconstructed image by summing time-delayed echo returns on receive transducer elements from a scatterer in the object being examined. The time delays of a scatterer's echoes recorded at each receiver are a function of the unique geometry of the probe elements, combined with an assumed value for the speed of sound through the medium being imaged. An important consideration is whether the summation should be coherent (phase sensitive) or incoherent (summing signal magnitudes only and disregarding phase information)”
determining a respective coherent sum over each of the plurality of portions of the ultrasound signals; and performing a processing operation over the respective coherent sum to obtain respective resulting data for each sub-aperture; and determining output data for imaging the target tissue at the point by summing the resulting data for the plurality of sub-apertures. (see para. 0092, “In some embodiments of multiple aperture imaging with point-source transmission, receive beamforming comprises forming a pixel of a reconstructed image by summing time-delayed echo returns on receive transducer elements from a scatterer in the object being examined. The time delays of a scatterer's echoes recorded at each receiver are a function of the unique geometry of the probe elements, combined with an assumed value for the speed of sound through the medium being imaged. An important consideration is whether the summation should be coherent (phase sensitive) or incoherent (summing signal magnitudes only and disregarding phase information).”
PNG
media_image1.png
543
523
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claims 22, 32 Call wherein the processing operation comprises at least in part a square operation or a magnitude square operation (see para .0092, 0134).
With respect to claim 23, Call discloses, wherein the one or more processing devices are formed in an FPGA or an ASIC (see para. 0078).
With respect to claim 24, 33 Call wherein at least a first sub-aperture of the plurality of sub-apertures is overlapped with a second sub-aperture of the plurality of sub-apertures (see para. 0062).
With respect to claims 25, 34 Call discloses wherein the ultrasonic transducer array comprises a 2D grid of CMUt (see para. 0056).
With respect to claims 27, 36 Call discloses wherein the one or more processing devices is configured to perform the processing for each of multiple points in the target tissue to form a two-dimensional ultrasound image. (see para. 0009).
With respect to claims 28, 37 Call discloses wherein the normalization compensates for cross-multiplication redundancy resulting from overlapping sub-apertures (see para. 0119).
With respect to claims 29, 38, Call discloses wherein the one or more processing devices is external to ultrasonic transducer array and communicatively coupled via a wireless connection (see para. 0055).
With respect to claims 30, 39, Call discloses wherein the system is configured for cardiac ultrasound imaging and operates between 1 MHz and 5 MHz. (see para. 0093).
With respect to claim 40, Call discloses, wherein the coherent sum is delayed based on per-element delay times aligned to a point in the target tissue. (see para. 0091-0092, see Fig. 6 multiple points, see para. 0124-0127)
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.
Claim(s) 26, 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Call et al. (US 2013/0253325, hereinafter Call).
With respect to claims 26, 34 however it fails to explicitly teach wherein the plurality of sub-apertures form a full aperture and a size of each of the first sub-aperture and the second sub-aperture is in a range of 50% - 80% of a size of the full aperture.
However, Call explicitly discloses that “The location, function, number of elements and physical size of an aperture may be defined dynamically in any manner needed for a particular application.” (see para. 0062).
Therefore, in the absence of any showing of specific criticality, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art at the time of the invention to have a sub-aperture having a range of 50%-80% of the size of the full aperture since doing so will allow for the user to dynamically adjust the size for a particular application depending of a particular cycle/target/dimensions as needed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)270-7782. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30am to 5:30pm.
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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/JOSEPH M SANTOS RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights