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 .
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 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-13, 16-17, 19-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (a) and 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Thiele [US 20240285261 A1].
As per claim 1, Thiele teaches an ultrasonic imaging method, comprising:
for each of at least one ultrasonic transmission (Thiele ¶0037 “an ultrasound probe that transmits and/or receives ultrasound waves and converts them into beamformed ultrasound signals or data streams”),
obtaining at least two ultrasonic sub-images of a scanning region acquired by at least two receiving array element subsets (Thiele ¶0046 “the beamformers 116, 118 each perform “delay-and-sum” beamforming in order to produce ultrasound images” The beamformers correspond to two receiving array element subsets 104 and 106, and signals 122, 124 correspond to the claimed two ultrasonic sub-images),
each of the at least two ultrasonic sub-images being obtained based on ultrasonic echo signals collected by one of the at least two receiving array element subsets (Thiele ¶0046 “For a given transmit event … scattered ultrasound waves are detected at the first and second apertures 108, 110 by the first and second sub-arrays 104, 106 and are converted to the electronic ultrasound signals 112, 114. … coherently summed to produce an output signal (referred to as the first sub-aperture signal 122…”);
obtaining at least two initial ultrasonic images based on the at least two ultrasonic sub-images for the each of the at least one ultrasonic transmission (In view of applicant spec. ¶0061, “initial ultrasonic images” are images formed for each transmission events 1-m. Thiele ¶0049 “For every focal point that is measured within the field of view (i.e., for every pixel in the final image), the first and second beamformers 116, 118 transmit a first sub-aperture signal 122 and a second sub-aperture signal 124 to a host 130”, Fig 1 Coherent addition of 122 and 124, for each transmit event associated with each pixel /focal point. ¶0055-¶0056 “in some embodiments, there may also be separate transmit events from each of the sub-apertures…ultrasound waves are received/detected for each transmit event, the above-described process of beamforming the signals received by both the first sub-aperture 108 and the second sub-aperture 110 is repeated for each received sub-aperture signal” That is full aperture signals 126 for each transmit event corresponds to claimed at least two initial ultrasonic images); and
determining a target ultrasonic image of the scanning region by fusing the at least two initial ultrasonic images (Thiele ¶0054 “…the above-described generation of the average signal may be iteratively repeated in order to generate an ultrasound image of the average signals 138 at every focal point (i.e., pixel). … may be performed in parallel for multiple focal points (i.e., pixels) in order to generate a final ultrasound image”. See Figs 4-5, showing images with all pixels ).
As per claim 2, Thiele further teaches wherein the obtaining at least two ultrasonic sub-images of a scanning region acquired by at least two receiving array element subsets for each of at least one ultrasonic transmission comprises: for the each of at least one ultrasonic transmission, determining the at least two receiving array element subsets based on a preset selection rule (Thiele ¶0041 “In one or more embodiments, the first and second sub-apertures 108 and 110 are spatially continuous …in other embodiments, the sub-apertures 108, 110 (and therefore the sub-arrays 104, 106) may not be continuous. For example, the sub-apertures 108, 110 may be intermittent (i.e., grouped into smaller portions of the sub-aperture that are not directly adjacent to each other)...” These are examples of preset selection rule for the sub-arrays ); acquiring ultrasonic echo signals through the at least two receiving array element subsets and obtaining the at least two ultrasonic sub-images based on the ultrasonic echo signals (Thiele ¶0046 “For a given transmit event … scattered ultrasound waves are detected at the first and second apertures 108, 110 by the first and second sub-arrays 104, 106 and are converted to the electronic ultrasound signals 112, 114” … Thiele ¶0049 “For every focal point that is measured within the field of view (i.e., for every pixel in the final image), ¶0055-¶0056 “in some embodiments, there may also be separate transmit events from each of the sub-apertures…ultrasound waves are received/detected for each transmit event, the above-described process of beamforming the signals received by both the first sub-aperture 108 and the second sub-aperture 110 is repeated for each received sub-aperture signal” That is, full aperture signals 126 for each transmit events/ pixels /focal points corresponds to claimed at least two initial ultrasonic images).
As per claim 5, Thiele further teaches wherein the determining a target ultrasonic image of the scanning region by fusing the at least two initial ultrasonic images comprises:
obtaining at least two processed initial ultrasonic images by performing envelope detection on each of the at least two initial ultrasonic images (Thiele Fig 1, Logarithmic detection for each transmit events/ pixels /focal points. ¶0050 “The logarithmic detection of the digitally sampled ultrasound signals generates a signal that is the logarithm of the envelope of the original ultrasound signal waveform”);
and obtaining the target ultrasonic image of the scanning region by performing incoherent compounding on the at least two processed initial ultrasonic images (Thiele Fig 1, averaging of the logarithmic signals / envelope for each transmit events/ pixels /focal points. Here averaging is performed on the envelope, i.e. amplitude and hence no phase information is involved, unlike coherent detection (see ¶0053). Hence this averaging in Thiele corresponds to an incoherent compounding).
As per claim 6, Thiele further teaches wherein for one of the at least one ultrasonic transmission, each of the at least two receiving array element subsets includes different elements on an ultrasonic probe; or each of the at least two receiving array element subsets has different receiving apertures on the ultrasonic probe (Examiner chooses latter. Thiele ¶0042 “The first and second sub-apertures 108 and 110 do not spatially overlap, as shown in FIG. 1. In other words, the sub-arrays 104 and 106 do not share any transducer elements in common.”).
As per claim 8, Thiele further teaches wherein at least two ultrasonic transmissions are performed; a count of the at least two receiving array element subsets for each of the at least two ultrasonic transmissions is the same (Thiele ¶0036 “For example, a one or two dimensional array, with a long axis in a lateral direction, may be divided in half such that one sub-array is entirely on one side of the center of the array and the other sub-array is entirely on the other side of the center of the array in the lateral direction” The elements are divided into two halves, hence the counts are same, i.e. two).
As per claim 11, Thiele further anticipates that wherein each of the at least two receiving array element subsets includes all elements on an ultrasonic probe or include a portion of the all elements on the ultrasonic probe (Thiele Fig 1, 11, it I s inhere rent that subsets includes all or portion of all elements. There is no other possibility).
As per claims 12, 16-17, 19 have limitations similar to claims 1, 5-6, 8 and are rejected for same reasons as above. Thiele further teaches an ultrasonic imaging system, comprising: a storage device, a processor, and instructions, being stored in the storage device, when executed by the processor, causing the ultrasonic imaging system to perform operations (Thiele Fig 10).
As per claim 13, Thiele further teaches wherein further comprising a display, wherein the processor further causes the ultrasonic imaging system to perform operations including: displaying the target ultrasonic image (Thiele Fig 10, ¶0096).
As per claim 20, have limitations similar to claim 1, and is rejected for same reasons as above. Thiele further teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium, comprising at least one set of instructions (Thiele ¶0036 “non-transitory computer readable medium”).
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.
Claims 3-4, 14-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele as applied to claims 2, 12 above, and further in view of Zhang [US 20220257218 A1].
As per claim 3-4, 14-15, Thiele further teaches wherein at least two ultrasonic transmissions is performed and the obtaining the at least two initial ultrasonic images based on the ultrasonic sub-images comprises: for each of the at least two ultrasonic transmissions, obtaining identifier of the at least two receiving array element subsets, and obtaining the at least two initial ultrasonic images by coherently compounding at least two ultrasonic sub-images obtained based on ultrasonic echo signals collected by receiving array element subsets with the same identifier for the at least two ultrasonic transmissions (Thiele ¶0040 “sub-apertures 108, 110 (and therefore the sub-arrays 104, 106) may not be continuous. For example, the sub-apertures 108, 110 may be intermittent (i.e., grouped into smaller portions of the sub-aperture that are not directly adjacent to each other). An example of one configuration including intermittent sub-apertures will be discussed further below with respect to FIGS. 6-8.” ¶0059 “second identifier corresponds to the aperture (physical or recreated) through which the signal is received” these sections imply identifier associated with the elements of the sub array), wherein the receiving array element subsets with the same identifier include different array element sets on an ultrasonic probe (Examiner chooses this. Thiele ¶0040, Fig 6) or the receiving array element subsets with the same serial number have different receiving apertures on the ultrasonic probe.
The only difference is that Thiele does not expressly recite the term “serial numbers”. Theile refers to identifiers.
Zhang, in a similar field of technology teaches using serial numbers for sub-apertures (Zhang ¶0073). Hence, using serail numbers for identifying sub-apertures are known. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Thiele, by substituting serial number instead of identifiers like “first” or “second”. As per MPEP 2143.I. B, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results. In the instant case this is simple substitution of identifier in Thiele with serial numbers as in Zhang so as to achieve predictable result of identifying arrays, sub arrays or apertures for different processing needs.
Claims 7, 18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele as applied to claims 1, 12 above, and further in view of Smith [US 20030144591 A1].
As per claims 7, 18, Thiele further teaches wherein the at least two receiving array element subsets comprise a first receiving array element subset and a second receiving array element subset; the first receiving array element subset and the second receiving array element subset include the same elements on an ultrasonic probe, or the first receiving array element subset and the second receiving array element subset have the same receive aperture on the ultrasonic probe (Examiner chooses “same elements” Thiele ¶0042 “In other embodiments, the first sub-aperture 108 and the second sub-aperture 110 may partially overlap such that the first sub-array 104 shares some of the ultrasound transducers in common with the second sub-array 106.”);
Thiele does not expressly teach elements of the first receiving array element subset and elements of the second receiving array element subset have different receive apodization schemes.
Smith, in a similar field of technology, teaches first receiving array element subset and elements of the second receiving array element subset have different receive apodization schemes (Smith ¶0043 “first and second apodization functions 605a-b are applied to selected ones of the row and column ultrasound transducers 610”, ¶0033 “In particular, the apodization function 305 applies an amplitude, in a transmit mode and/or in a receive mode, to each of the ultrasound transducer elements 310”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Thiele by integrating different apodization functions. As per MPEP 2143.I. B, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In the instant case, the claim is merely directed to combine known apodization techniques for predictable result of generating sub apertures, for curved / liner dimensions of the array (Smith ¶0007).
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thiele as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Specht [US 20130144166 A1].
As per claims 9-10 Thiele further teaches 9 wherein a count of the at least two receiving array element subsets is two; and receiving apertures of the at least two (Thiele ¶0036 “For example, a one or two dimensional array, with a long axis in a lateral direction, may be divided in half such that one sub-array is entirely on one side of the center of the array and the other sub-array is entirely on the other side of the center of the array in the lateral direction” The elements are divided into two halves, hence the counts are same, i.e. two)
Thiele does not expressly teach receiving array element subsets are symmetrical / asymmetrical relative to a transmission center of an ultrasonic probe.
Specht, in a related field, teaches receiving array element subsets are symmetrical / asymmetrical relative to a transmission center of an ultrasonic probe (Specht Figs 11, 13, ¶0040, ¶0042).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Thiele by integrating different apodization functions. As per MPEP 2143.I. B, example of rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. In, the instant case, the claim is merely directed to arrange arrays in one of two possible ways symmetrically or asymmetrically. Predictable result will be implementing multiple apertures for imaging in terms of the ability to detect motion in two dimensions (Specht ¶0075).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights