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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 1 January 2025. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the JP2025-015210 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
It should be appreciated that Applicant was notified that the Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program failed retrieve JP2025-015210 on 2 February 2026. According to Electronic Priority Document Exchange (PDX) Program, “[I]f retrieval fails applicants remain responsible for the submission of the certified copy of the foreign application.”1
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 31 December 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, & 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by De Beni (US PGPUB 20230263508; hereinafter "De Beni").
With regards to Claim 1, De Beni discloses an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (ultrasound system of FIG. 1; see De Beni ¶ [0049]) comprising:
an ultrasound probe that transmits an ultrasound wave to a subject and receives a reflection of the ultrasound wave from the subject to output an analog reception signal (one or more ultrasound probes indicated respectively 101-1, 101-...,101-n; see De Beni ¶ [0050]);
a reception circuit that processes the analog reception signal (The beamformer 103/820 performs beamforming upon received echo signals to form beamformed echo signals in connection pixel locations distributed across the region of interest, the beamformer 103/820 includes (or is coupled to) an A/D converter 124/808 that digitizes the receive signals at a select sampling rate; see De Beni ¶ [0055-0056 & 0141]); and
a processor (one or more processors 106 to perform the various operations; see De Beni ¶ [0058]),
wherein the processor is configured to:
identify a type of the ultrasound probe (selection/setting circuit 130 unpacks {i.e. identifies} an exclusive probe identification code stored in a corresponding on-board memory 170-1, 170-2, 170-n of each probe 101-1, 101-...,101-n; see De Beni ¶ [0075, 0079]; setting data associated with each probe 101-1, 101-...,101-n is stored in the corresponding memory 170-1, 170-2, 170-n is retrieved by the selection/setting circuit 130 and stores the data in database memory 140; see De Beni ¶ [0081 & 0083]);
control the reception circuit according to the type of the ultrasound probe (the setting data is transmitted to the CPU 112 and then to the transmit and receive beamformer 103/820 and to the demodulator 122/810 and the A/D converter 124/808; see De Beni ¶ [0085]; the setting data comprising configuring parameters to of the ultrasound scanner to correctly drive the corresponding probe 101, i.e. control the reception circuit based on the identification code and corresponding configuring parameters to drive the probe 101; see ¶ [0098]); and
change at least a part of a circuit configuration of the reception circuit (the setting data is transmitted to the CPU 112 and then to the transmit and receive beamformer 103 and to the demodulator 122 and the A/D converter 124; see De Beni ¶ [0085 & 0141]; the setting data comprising configuring parameters to of the ultrasound scanner to correctly drive the corresponding probe 101, i.e. control the reception circuit based on the identification code and corresponding configuring parameters to drive the probe 101; see ¶ [0098]).
Claim 9 recites similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 21, wherein the reception circuit includes:
an AD converter that converts the analog reception signal into a digital reception signal (The beamformer 103 performs beamforming upon received echo signals to form beamformed echo signals in connection pixel locations distributed across the region of interest, the beamformer 103 includes (or is coupled to) an A/D converter 124 that digitizes the receive signals at a select sampling rate; see De Beni ¶ [0055-0056] & 0141); and
a processing circuit that processes the digital reception signal (output from standard processing circuit 805 {i.e. including A/D converter 808} is then fed to FPGA beamformer 820 to process the digital signal; see De Beni ¶ [0141] & FIG. 6), and
the processor is configured to:
control the AD converter such that the AD converter converts the analog reception signal into the digital reception signal at a sampling frequency corresponding to the type of the ultrasound probe (setting data is transferred to the A/D converter 124/808; see De Beni ¶ [0085 & 0141]; the A/D converter 124/808 digitizes the receive signals and selects a sampling rate; see De Beni ¶ [0058]; it should be appreciated that De Beni only discloses a single A/D converter setting, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the transmitting setting data to the A/D converter 124/808 would include at least the only discloses setting for the A/D converter 124); and
change a circuit configuration of the processing circuit according to the type of the ultrasound probe (beam forming circuits 820 which utilize one or more FPGAs to perform filtering, delaying and summing the incoming digitized receive signals; see De Beni ¶ [0141]).
With regards to Claim 62, wherein the processing circuit is implemented by an FPGA (output from standard processing circuit 805 {i.e. including A/D converter 808} is then fed to FPGA beamformer 820 to process the digital signal; see De Beni ¶ [0141] & FIG. 6).
With regards to Claim 76, wherein the processor is configured to change a part of a circuit configuration of the FPGA (manage the filters, delays and summing operations performed by the FPGAs in connection with beamforming based on received focalization data {i.e. setting data}; see De Beni ¶ [0141]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 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.
Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Beni in further view of Fontana et al. (US PGPUB 20220361849; hereinafter "Fontana").
With regards to Claim 32, while De Beni discloses digital signal processing including filtering and compression (see De Beni ¶ [00143]), it appears that De Beni may be silent to wherein the processing circuit executes decimation processing of the digital reception signal. However, Fontana teaches of ultrasound probes with identification codes associated therewith (Fontana Claim 1). In particular, Fontana teaches of configuring a processing unit process the ultrasound signals associated with said probe, wherein the configuration includes compression and decimation (see Claim 2 & ¶ [0062]). It should be appreciated that Fontana also teaches of adaptive temporal decimation of data, according to a predefined bandwidth {i.e. imaging frequency}, adjusting the sampling frequency according to the Nyquist limit (see Fontana ¶ [0092]).
De Beni and Fontana are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of means for identifying ultrasound probes. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Beni to incorporate the above teachings of Fontana to provide at least decimation. Doing so would aid in reducing data quantity (see Fontana ¶ [0092]).
With regards to Claim 43, wherein the processor is configured to change a circuit configuration of a filter for the decimation processing according to the type of the ultrasound probe (adaptive temporal decimation of data {i.e. filter configuration adjustment}, according to a predefined bandwidth {i.e. type of probe}, adjusting the sampling frequency according to the Nyquist limit (see Fontana ¶ [0092]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over De Beni in view of Fontana, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Rothberg et al. (US PGPUB 20170360415; hereinafter "Rothberg").
With regards to Claim 81, while De Beni automatic mode selection {i.e. applying setting parameters from memory} based on a probe identification code (see De Beni ¶ [0031]), it appears that De Beni may be silent to wherein the processor is configured to notify an operator of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus whether the change of the circuit configuration of the reception circuit is successful or unsuccessful. Rothberg teaches of a multi-modal ultrasound probe configured to operate in a plurality of operating modes associated with a respective plurality of configuration profiles, wherein the first mode includes a first decimation rate and a second mode includes a unique second decimation rate (see Rothberg Abstract & ¶ [0135]). Moreover, Rothberg teaches of wherein the processor is configured to notify an operator of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus whether the change of the circuit configuration of the reception circuit is successful or unsuccessful (the user may select one of the operating modes through the GUI by using a touchscreen, mouse, keyboard, voice input, and/or any other suitable way. The GUI may provide the user with a visual confirmation of the selection; see ¶ [0158]).
De Beni and Rothberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of parameterization of ultrasound imaging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified De Beni to incorporate the above teachings of Rothberg to provide at least confirmation of configuration change. Doing so would aid in indicating to the user that the mode has been selected (see Rothberg ¶ [0157-0158]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Neither the cited nor the searched prior art teaches of increasing the ADC sampling frequency when the analog reception signal output by the ultrasound probe increases. Most prior references teach that the ADC clock remains the same regardless of the sampling frequency of the analog transceiver. For example, the closest prior reference, Rothberg et al. (US PGPUB 20170360415; hereinafter "Rothberg") teaches of a multi-modal ultrasound probe configured to operate in a plurality of operating modes associated with a respective plurality of configuration profiles (see Rothberg Abstract). Rothberg also teaches in TABLE 4 that as the receive frequency increases the decimation rate decreases. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a reduced decimation filter rate is related to a reduced decimation filter length and which amounts to reducing the number of decimation filters. However, Rothberg clearly teaches that the ADC clock remains static.
Similarly, Nishihara et al. (US PGPUB 20150094586; hereinafter "Nishihara") teaches decimation and data reduction based on spatial frequency (see Nishihara ¶ [0079]). More importantly, Nishihara teaches that the A/D converter sampling frequency is typically fixed (see Nishihara ¶ [0044]).
Ko et al. (US PGPUB 20170071579; hereinafter "Ko") teaches setting an operation mode of an ultrasound system (see Ko Abstract). More specifically, Ko teaches of a low power wherein the ADC sampling rate is lowered when the transmitted/received frequency of the ultrasound wave is lowered. However, Ko does not teach of compression or decimation and would require hindsight to combine with other cited references.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Marian (US PGPUB 20040002657);
Song et al. (US PGPUB 20180035981);
Colby (US PGPUB 20090018443); and
Kim et al. (“A New Dynamic Decimation Filter Using Polyphase MACs for Medical Ultrasound Imaging,” (21 March 2009), 2008 IEEE Ultrasonics Symposium).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571) 272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 am - 5:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 <https://www.uspto.gov/patents/basics/international-protection/electronic-priority-document-exchange-pdx>
Prosecution Insights