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 under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f) based on an application (Application No. KR10-2023-0068957) filed in Republic of Korea on 30 May 2023.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 13 Nov 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because its first sentence “Provided is to an ultrasound output device …” contains a grammatical error. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“by controlling a delay time … and whether to activate the plurality of output channels“ should read “by controlling a delay time … and controlling whether to activate the plurality of output channels” (claim 1); and
“controlling the delay time …, and controlling the delay time …, and …” should read “controlling the delay time …, controlling the delay time …, and” (claim 10).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a control unit for controlling a focus generated by an ultrasound signal by controlling a delay time of the ultrasound signal output through the plurality of output channels and whether to activate the plurality of output channels”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 and its dependent claims have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
[44] According to one embodiment of the present disclosure, the control unit 200 may refer to a central processing unit that generally controls the operation of the ultrasound output device 10, including the ultrasound probe or the transducer within the ultrasound probe.
[45] In other words, the control unit 200 may be implemented using, for example, at least one of Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), Digital Signal Processors (DSPs), Digital Signal Processing Devices (DSPDs), Programmable Logic Devices (PLDs), Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), processors, controllers, microcontrollers, and microprocessors, and may be implemented as a firmware/software module executable on the aforementioned hardware platform. In this case, the firmware/software module may be implemented by one or more software applications written in an appropriate program language.
For purposes of the examination, examiner will interpret “control unit” as a processor configured to control generating a focus by at least grouping the plurality of output channels and selectively applying a delay time to the grouped channels as disclosed in [51]-[69] (also see claims 2-4), or equivalents thereof.
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s) and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure(s), material(s), or act(s) perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (1) amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s) to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (2) stating on the record what the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s), which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. See 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §608.01(o) and §2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a prediction unit that predicts a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups”. The “prediction unit” recited in claim 5 is a component of “control unit” recited in claim 1, to which claim 5 depends, and the “control unit” is a processor (see the Claim Interpretation above). Thus, the limitation in claim 5 recites a processor implemented function of “predict(ing) a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups”. A review of the specification of the instant application, however, does not disclose in sufficient detail the algorithm by which the recited function of “predict(ing) a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups” is performed. In particular, [85] of the specification merely discloses “the prediction unit 231 may determine a first focus angle of the first ultrasound signal for the predetermined position and a second focus angle of the second ultrasound signal for the predetermined position according to the first time and the second time, and predict the focus size according to the first focus angle and the second focus angle”. However, the specification does not disclose how the prediction unit predicts a focus size by determining a focus angle for a predetermined position according to a delay time. See MPEP 2161.01.I.: “the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.”. Claim 6-8 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 5.
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 1-8 and 10-11 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a control unit for controlling a focus generated by an ultrasound signal …” It is unclear whether “a focus” recited in the limitation is the same or different from “controlling a focus” also recited in the preamble of the claim. Claims 2-8 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “a control unit for controlling the focus generated by an ultrasound signal …”
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the delay time of a plurality of ultrasound signals output from each of the plurality of channel groups”. The antecedent basis for “the delay time” in the limitation is unclear. In particular, claim 1, to which claim 3 depends, recites “a delay time of the ultrasound signal”, not a delay time of a plurality of ultrasound signals. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “a delay time of a plurality of ultrasound signals output from each of the plurality of channel groups”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the delay time of the plurality of ultrasound signals output from each of the plurality of channel groups”. The antecedent bases for “the delay time” and “the plurality of ultrasound signals” are unclear. In particular, claim 1, to which claim 4 depends, recites “a delay time of the ultrasound signal”, not a delay time of a plurality of ultrasound signals. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “a delay time of a plurality of ultrasound signals from each of the plurality of channel groups”.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the focus size of the at least one focus”. The antecedent basis for “the focus size” is unclear. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “a focus size of the at least one focus”.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a prediction unit that predicts a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups”. As noted above in the Claim Interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection, the algorithm by which this processor implemented limitation is performed is not disclosed in the original specification in sufficient detail, thus the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear. Claims 6-8 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 5. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as a processor configured to determine a desired focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein the determination unit sets a plurality of focus size levels based on the angle information, and determines whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups …” It is unclear whether the determination unit is being claimed to recite the functions of setting and determining, or the limitation attempts to recite a method within the apparatus claim. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein the determination unit is further configured to set a plurality of focus size levels based on the angle information, and determine whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups …”
Claim 10 recites the limitations “controlling the delay time of the ultrasound signal output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate a plurality of foci” and “controlling the delay time of the ultrasound signal output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate at least one focus”. It is unclear whether these limitations are redundant or different. Claim 11 inherits the deficiency by the nature of its dependency on claim 10. For the purposes of the examination, the limitations are being given a broadest reasonable interpretation to be redundant and as “controlling the delay time of the ultrasound signal output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate a plurality of foci”.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “controlling the focus size of the at least one focus”. The antecedent basis for “the focus size” is unclear. Claim 11 inherits the deficiency by the nature of its dependency on claim 10. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “controlling a focus size of the at least one focus”.
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.
Claims 1-4 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al. (US PG Pub No. 2013/0060170) – hereinafter referred to as Lee.
Regarding claim 1, Lee discloses an ultrasound output device capable of controlling a focus (at least Fig. 7) comprising:
an ultrasound output unit (Fig. 7: ultrasound transducer unit 720) including a plurality of output channels (Fig. 7 and [0047]: ultrasound transducer unit including a plurality of ultrasound transducer elements); and
a control unit (Fig. 7: control unit 711) for controlling a focus generated by an ultrasound signal (Fig. 7 and [0062]: focus ultrasound irradiated by the plurality of ultrasound transducer elements on focus FC) by controlling a delay time of the ultrasound signal output through the plurality of output channels (Fig. 7 and [0064]: phase modulator outputs electrical signals having different phases so that ultrasound signals generated from the ultrasound transducer elements that belong to different groups GR1 to GRN have different transmission delay times) and whether to activate the plurality of output channels ([0066]: control unit 711 controls the ultrasound transducer elements to generate ultrasound having different phases and intensities according to groups GR1 to GRN in response to electrical signals having different phases and amplitudes via the channels CH1 to CHN).
It is noted that a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to controlling “whether to activate the plurality of output channels” to include Lee’s activation of ultrasound transducer elements to generate ultrasound having different phases and intensities.
Regarding claim 2, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the control unit (Fig. 7: control unit 711) includes a grouping unit (Fig. 7: grouping unit 740) that groups the plurality of output channels to generate a plurality of channel groups (Fig. 7 and [0052]: grouping unit groups ultrasound transducer elements 322 into two or more of the groups GR1 to GRN; [0065]: grouping unit transmits grouping information to processor to control signal amplifier for each output channel).
Regarding claim 3, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the control unit (Fig. 7: control unit 711) includes a multi-focus control unit that controls the delay time of a plurality of ultrasound signals output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate a plurality of foci ([0067]: control unit 711 controls the ultrasound transducer unit 720 to make a multi-focus using the ultrasound generated from the ultrasound transducer unit 720 via phase modulator 713 and signal amplifier 714; [0064]: phase modulator outputs electrical signals having different phases so that ultrasound signals generated from the ultrasound transducer elements that belong to different groups GR1 to GRN have different transmission delay times).
Regarding claim 4, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Lee further discloses:
wherein the control unit (Fig. 7: control unit 711) includes a focus size control unit that controls the delay time of the plurality of ultrasound signals output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate at least one focus ([0067]: processor groups the groups GR1 and GRn of ultrasound transducer unit 720 into first and second groups and controls phase modulator and signal amplifier applied to first and second groups to irradiate ultrasound onto focal positions; [0064]: phase modulator outputs electrical signals having different phases so that ultrasound signals generated from the ultrasound transducer elements that belong to different groups GR1 to GRN have different transmission delay times) and controls the focus size of the at least one focus by controlling whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups ([0067]: processor controls phase modulator and signal amplifier to irradiate ultrasound onto different focal positions using different groups of ultrasound transducer elements).
It is noted that a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to “controlling whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups” to include Lee’s activation of different groups of transducer elements for a focus size at different focal positions.
Regarding claim 9, Lee discloses an ultrasound focus control method (at least Fig. 7) comprising:
controlling a focus generated by an ultrasound signal (Fig. 7 and [0062]: focus ultrasound irradiated by the plurality of ultrasound transducer elements on focus FC) by controlling a delay time of the ultrasound signal output through a plurality of output channels (Fig. 7 and [0064]: phase modulator outputs electrical signals having different phases so that ultrasound signals generated from the ultrasound transducer elements that belong to different groups GR1 to GRN have different transmission delay times) and whether to activate the plurality of output channels ([0066]: control unit 711 controls the ultrasound transducer elements to generate ultrasound having different phases and intensities according to groups GR1 to GRN in response to electrical signals having different phases and amplitudes via the channels CH1 to CHN).
It is noted that a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to controlling “whether to activate the plurality of output channels” to include Lee’s activation of ultrasound transducer elements to generate ultrasound having different phases and intensities.
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 9, as discussed above, and further discloses:
wherein the controlling of the focus includes
grouping the plurality of output channels to generate a plurality of channel groups (Fig. 7 and [0052]: grouping unit groups ultrasound transducer elements 322 into two or more of the groups GR1 to GRN; [0065]: grouping unit transmits grouping information to processor to control signal amplifier for each output channel),
controlling the delay time of the ultrasound signal output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate a plurality of foci ([0067]: control unit 711 controls the ultrasound transducer unit 720 to make a multi-focus using the ultrasound generated from the ultrasound transducer unit 720 via phase modulator 713 and signal amplifier 714; [0064]: phase modulator outputs electrical signals having different phases so that ultrasound signals generated from the ultrasound transducer elements that belong to different groups GR1 to GRN have different transmission delay times), and
controlling the delay time of the ultrasound signal output from each of the plurality of channel groups to generate at least one focus ([0067]: control unit 711 controls the ultrasound transducer unit 720 to make a multi-focus using the ultrasound generated from the ultrasound transducer unit 720 via phase modulator 713 and signal amplifier 714; [0064]: phase modulator outputs electrical signals having different phases so that ultrasound signals generated from the ultrasound transducer elements that belong to different groups GR1 to GRN have different transmission delay times), and
controlling the focus size of the at least one focus by controlling whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups ([0067]: processor controls phase modulator and signal amplifier to irradiate ultrasound onto different focal positions using different groups of ultrasound transducer elements).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Qiao et al. (CN109125960A, a copy of machine translation relied upon attached to this Office action) – hereinafter referred to as Qiao.
Regarding claim 5, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and Lee does not disclose:
wherein the focus size control unit includes a prediction unit that predicts a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups, and
a determination unit that determines whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups based on the prediction focus size.
In the same field of controlling an ultrasound focus, Qiao, however, teaches:
predicting a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups (Fig. 4 and [59]-[61]: calculate deflection phase value based on relative geometric position between the focus position and the array element to add to initial phase value to form final initial phase value resulting in varying ultrasound focus sizes), and
determining whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups based on the prediction focus size (Fig. 5 and [59]-[61]: combine initial phase value and deflection phase value to achieve a varying large-scale focus corresponding to the initial phase value and deflection phase value).
It is noted that Qiao teaches predicting a prediction focus size by determining a desired focus size (Fig. 4 and [59]-[61]). See the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection to claim 5 above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to include Qiao’s method of predicting a prediction focus size and determining whether to activate a channel group. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed, and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Lee and Qiao are directed to controlling a therapeutic ultrasound focus. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow “forming a plurality of focused ultrasound focuses at spatially designated locations”, as disclosed by Qiao ([06]).
Regarding claim 6, Lee in view of Qiao discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Qiao further teaches (also see claim 5 above):
wherein when one channel group of the plurality of channel groups is activated, the angle information is a focus angle for the one channel group (Fig. 4 and [59]-[61]: deflection phase value calculated according to the relative geometric position between the focus position and the array element).
It is noted that claim 6 recites contingent limitations. See MPEP 2111.04.II.
Regarding claim 7, Lee in view of Qiao discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Qiao further teaches (also see claim 5 above):
setting a plurality of focus size levels based on the angle information (Fig. 4 and [59]-[61]: calculate deflection phase value based on relative geometric position between the focus position and the array element to add to initial phase value to form final initial phase value resulting in varying ultrasound focus sizes), and
determining whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups based on one focus size level of the plurality of focus size levels corresponding to a target focus size (Fig. 5 and [59]-[61]: combine initial phase value and deflection phase value to achieve a varying large-scale focus corresponding to the initial phase value and deflection phase value).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Qiao, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Pahk (US PG Pub No. 2024/0374275) – hereinafter referred to as Pahk.
Regarding claim 8, Lee in view of Qiao discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Lee does not disclose:
wherein the focus size control unit further includes a pressure maintenance unit that maintains a pressure intensity of the ultrasound signal within a preset range depending on whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups.
In the same field of controlling an ultrasound focus, Pahk, however, teaches:
maintaining a pressure intensity of the ultrasound signal within a preset range depending on whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups ([0093]: adjust the acoustic pressure of the focused ultrasound so that the acoustic pressure is either a linear or non-linear ultrasound waveform with a maximum static pressure of less than 40 MPa, or a maximum static pressure of 30 MPa or less and a maximum negative pressure of −10 MPa or more).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to include Pahk’s method of maintaining a pressure intensity of the ultrasound signal within a preset range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed, and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Lee and Pahk are directed to controlling a therapeutic ultrasound focus. The motivation for the combination would have been to “prevent[s] the focused ultrasound from generating the shock wave scattering effects within biological tissue”, as disclosed by Pahk ([0093]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Qiao and Pahk.
Regarding claim 11, Lee discloses all limitations of claim 10, as discussed above, and Lee does not disclose:
wherein the controlling of the focus size includes predicting a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups,
determining whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups based on the prediction focus size, and
maintaining a pressure intensity of the ultrasound signal within a preset range depending on whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups.
In the same field of controlling an ultrasound focus, Qiao, however, teaches:
predicting a prediction focus size when at least one channel group is activated based on angle information for the at least one channel group among the plurality of channel groups (Fig. 4 and [59]-[61]: calculate deflection phase value based on relative geometric position between the focus position and the array element to add to initial phase value to form final initial phase value resulting in varying ultrasound focus sizes), and
determining whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups based on the prediction focus size (Fig. 5 and [59]-[61]: combine initial phase value and deflection phase value to achieve a varying large-scale focus corresponding to the initial phase value and deflection phase value).
It is noted that a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to “predicting a prediction focus size …” to include Qiao’s determination of a desired focus size (Fig. 4 and [59]-[61]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s method to include Qiao’s method of predicting a prediction focus size and determining whether to activate a channel group. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed, and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Lee and Qiao are directed to controlling a therapeutic ultrasound focus. The motivation for the combination would have been to allow “forming a plurality of focused ultrasound focuses at spatially designated locations”, as disclosed by Qiao ([06]).
In the same field of controlling an ultrasound focus, Pahk further teaches:
maintaining a pressure intensity of the ultrasound signal within a preset range depending on whether to activate each of the plurality of channel groups ([0093]: adjust the acoustic pressure of the focused ultrasound so that the acoustic pressure is either a linear or non-linear ultrasound waveform with a maximum static pressure of less than 40 MPa, or a maximum static pressure of 30 MPa or less and a maximum negative pressure of −10 MPa or more).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Lee’s apparatus to include Pahk’s method of maintaining a pressure intensity of the ultrasound signal within a preset range. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed, and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Lee and Pahk are directed to controlling a therapeutic ultrasound focus. The motivation for the combination would have been to “prevent[s] the focused ultrasound from generating the shock wave scattering effects within biological tissue”, as disclosed by Pahk ([0093]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Barthe et al. (US PG Pub No. 2006/0058664) discloses changing ultrasound focus size by grouping ultrasound transducers (see at least Fig. 12A-B and [0073]);
Xu et al. (US PG Pub No. 2022/0331615) discloses changing ultrasound focus size by grouping ultrasound transducers (see at least Fig. 5-9); and
Vitek et al. (US Patent No. 6506171) discloses changing ultrasound focus size by grouping ultrasound transducers (see at least Fig. 2, 6 and Col 7, lines 31-67).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
09/07/26
Prosecution Insights