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 09/11/2026 has been entered. Claim 3-6 and 10 are cancelled, claims 14-15 are added, and claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11-15 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 06/22/0226.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 09/11/2026 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 Son is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 2, 8-9, and 11-12 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-2, 7-9, and 11-15 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.
For claims 1 and 15, “each of the plurality of target points being determined according to a magnitude of a corresponding one of the plurality of the scan ultrasound reception signals according to a depth from a skin of the human body” is indefinite.
It is unclear what is “according to a depth from a skin” (i.e., points according to a depth, magnitude according to a depth, or reception signals corresponding to a depth). For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes each point corresponds to a depth.
Claims 3, 7-9, and 11-14 are dependent of claim 1, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
For claim 7, “generate an average target line determined as an average value of depths from the skin of the human body corresponding to a plurality of target points” is indefinite.
It is unclear how to generate a line based on an average value of points. For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes the average target line is a point.
Claims 8 and 11-12 are dependent of claim 7, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Son et al. (US 20160007960 A1, published January 14, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Son.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claim 15, Son teaches an ultrasound treatment device (Fig. 1, ultrasound medical apparatus 100) comprising:
a scan ultrasound transducer (Fig. 1, imaging transducer 120 as scan ultrasound transducer) configured to transmit a plurality of scan ultrasound transmission signals to scan inside of a human body during a plurality of transmission intervals, respectively, and receive a plurality of scan ultrasound reception signals reflected from the human body that respectively correspond to the plurality of scan ultrasound transmission signals (see para. 0029 – “The imaging transducer 120 transmits the imaging ultrasound in a straight line and receives the reflected wave in order to generate a 2D image of a region to be ultrasound imaged. Hence the imaging transducer 120 receives a single straight line image per transmission of the imaging ultrasound. The imaged region from a single cycle of the imaging ultrasound transmission and reception is called a scanline. An image of a single frame is obtained by repeating a process of sequentially transmitting the imaging ultrasound in the respective scanlines and collecting data.”);
a processor (Fig. 1, includes image processing unit 130 as processor) configured to generate a plurality of target points based respectively on the plurality of scan ultrasound reception signals, and generate a target line based on the plurality of target points (Fig. 8B, experimental group scanline 820 as target line based on target points; see para. 0106 – “The experimental group scanline 820 is displayed to correspond to the control group scanline 810 that passes the focal point 510 set on the treatment transducer 110 shown in FIG. 8A.” inherent and known in the art to generate points to generate a scan line),
each of the plurality of target points being determined according to a magnitude of a corresponding one of the plurality of the scan ultrasound reception signals according to a depth from a skin of the human body (Fig. 8C, points of experimental group scanline 820 as target points; see para. 0114 – “As a region where a reflected wave higher than the transmitted wave is detected on the image picture is a region where the reflected wave of the high-intensity ultrasound is concentrated, the focal point 510 of the high-intensity ultrasound can be found.”; see para. 0108 – “FIG. 8C is a graph showing the intensity [magnitude] of the ultrasound received by the imaging transducer at a scanline [reception signal of scan line] that passes the focal point [according to depth], depending on whether or not the high-intensity ultrasound is generated.”); and
a treatment ultrasound transducer (Fig. 1, treatment transducer 110 as treatment ultrasound transducer) configured to transmit a treatment ultrasound transmission signal along the target line (Fig. 8A-8C; see para. 0107 – “…as a strong echo signal is detected at a bright area 830 in FIG. 8B, the focal point 510 is displayed in white on the experimental group scanline 820 of the high-intensity ultrasound [treatment ultrasound transmission signal] that passes the focal point 510 [along target line 820].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Son further teaches wherein the processor is configured to adjust a transmission interval corresponding to a time interval for transmitting the scan ultrasound transmission signal (Fig. 2-3A; see para. 0058 – “The transmit beamformer 230 [includes first transmit beamformer 220] controls the traveling direction of each ultrasound by applying a different time delay [adjusting transmission interval] on an electrical signals for generating ultrasound for each of the transducer elements of the transducer array depending on the location of the transducer element.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Son further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to determine a transmission position corresponding to a position at which the plurality of treatment ultrasound transmission signals are transmitted (Fig. 8A-8C; see para. 0106 – “In FIG. 8B, a scanline of the high-intensity ultrasound [treatment ultrasound transmission signals] that passes the focal point 510 [transmission position] is displayed as an experimental group scanline 820. The experimental group scanline 820 is displayed to correspond to the control group scanline 810 that passes the focal point 510 set on the treatment transducer 110 shown in FIG. 8A.”).
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 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Zhang et al. (US 20140316269 A1, published October 23, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Zhang.
Regarding claim 7, Son teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above, and
Son further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to: generate a connection target line by sequentially connecting the plurality of target points (Fig. 8B, experimental group scanline 820 as connection target line based on connecting target points; see para. 0106 – “The experimental group scanline 820 is displayed to correspond to the control group scanline 810 that passes the focal point 510 set on the treatment transducer 110 shown in FIG. 8A.” inherent and known in the art to generate points to generate a scan line).
Son teaches generating a scan line based on points, and averaging depth values to generate an average depth point is known in the art, but does not explicitly teach generating an average target line (point) determined as an average value of depths from the skin of the human body corresponding to a plurality of target points.
Whereas, Zhang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches generating an average target line determined as an average value of depths from the skin of the human body corresponding to a plurality of target points (see para. 0686 "(C) The system determines an average Z depth (i.e., the Z direction depth from the treatment array to the target tissue) by averaging at of readings. For example, averaging reading over a 15 seconds period." it is inherent and known in the art to average the pixel depths of a region in order to determine a center (average depth) of the region).
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 generating a plurality of target points, as disclosed in Son, by also determining an average depth based on the generated plurality of target points, as disclosed in Zhang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve treatment process and outcome of focused energy therapy, as taught in Zhang (see para. 0006).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Son further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to select one of the connection target line and the average target line and provide the selected one as a target line (Fig. 8A-8C; see para. 0106 – “In FIG. 8B, a scanline of the high-intensity ultrasound that passes the focal point 510 is displayed as an experimental group scanline 820 [selected target line]. The experimental group scanline 820 is displayed to correspond to the control group scanline 810 that passes the focal point 510 set on the treatment transducer 110 shown in FIG. 8A.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Son further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to move the connection target line up and down according to a first input value of a user and provide the moved connection target line (see para. 0046 – “The control unit 150 controls the overall functions of the ultrasound medical apparatus 100, receives information on the focal point of a user from the input unit 170, or re-adjusts the orientation of the treatment transducer 110 based on the image picture.” adjusting focal point as adjusting connection target line).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Son further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to move the average target line up and down according to a second input value of a user and provide the moved average target line (see para. 0046 – “The control unit 150 controls the overall functions of the ultrasound medical apparatus 100, receives information on the focal point of a user from the input unit 170, or re-adjusts the orientation of the treatment transducer 110 based on the image picture.” adjusting focal point as adjusting average target line (point)).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Iger (US 20110218464 A1, published September8, 2011), hereinafter referred to as Iger.
Regarding claim 13, Son teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Son teaches generating a treatment ultrasound transmission signal, and it is inherent and known in the art to adjust the treatment ultrasound transmission signal, but does not explicitly teach adjusting the treatment signal based on the depth of the target points.
Whereas, Iger, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasound treatment device is configured to adjust an intensity and interval of each of the plurality of treatment ultrasound transmission signals, or a movement speed of the treatment ultrasound transducer based on depths of a plurality of target points and a treatment intensity according to a previously input type of a treatment skin layer (see para. 0048 – “…reference to FIG. 1, the system 20 further includes an ultrasound energy source including a signal generator 26 operatively coupled to a signal amplifier 27 and a power supply 28, and being configured to produce signals and to deliver electrical current at given frequencies and power to ultrasound emitting devices, e.g., ultrasound transducers, disposed within the treatment applicator 40 to administer ultrasound energy to target tissue ultrasound emitting devices, which are configured and arranged for targeting ultrasound energy to a selected skin or soft tissue layer and/or a selected location or depth within the layer.").
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 generating a treatment ultrasound transmission signal, as disclosed in Son, by also adjusting the treatment signal based on the depth of the target points, as disclosed in Iger. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide different types of treatment and may produce different desired or required treatment impacts that are specific to a particular skin or soft tissue layer and/or a particular location or depth within the layer, as taught in Iger (see para. 0048).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Son in view of Chang (US 20140305218 A1, published October 16, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Chang.
Regarding claim 14, Son teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Son teaches generating points, but does not explicitly teach generating points corresponding to a maximum intensity value.
Whereas, Chang, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine each of the plurality of target points at the depth where the magnitude of the corresponding one of the scan ultrasound reception signals reaches a maximum value (Fig. 4; see para. 0022 – “…calculate positions of pixels with maximum signal intensity corresponding to the scan lines in the strong echo areas AH of the scanned image Sg and the standard image Ig.”).
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 generating points, as disclosed in Son, by generating points corresponding to a maximum intensity value, as disclosed in Chang. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to detect a state of a coated gel coated on the ultrasound probe, as taught in Chang (see para. 0019).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Yoo et al. (KR 101652723 B1, published August 31, 2016) discloses using the envelope signal the mean intensity values of the pixels located in the same depth generating a vertical profile that represents, and generates the horizontal profile that represents the average intensity values of the pixels located in the same lateral direction (lateral) position (Fig. 3-4).
Tiemann (EP 0002061 B2, published November 26, 1986) discloses generating input digital echo data representing received echo amplitudes at sampling points along scan lines angulated at angles on either side of the normal having substantially equal tangent increments.
Tateyama (US 20110082372 A1, published April 7, 2011) discloses points of high amplitude appear at positions of b1 and b2, respectively, on the scanning line 10b, and such points appear at positions of c1 and c2, respectively, on the scanning line 10c, and at positions of d1 and d2, respectively, on the scanning line 10d (Fig. 2A).
Medlin et al. (US 20100262007 A1, published October 14, 2010) discloses each scanline is a series of acoustic reflection intensity values and multiple scanline data points (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
Prosecution Insights