Jump to content

Patent Application 18024315 - METHOD AND SYSTEM USING CODED EXCITATION WITH - Rejection

From WikiPatents

Patent Application 18024315 - METHOD AND SYSTEM USING CODED EXCITATION WITH

Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM USING CODED EXCITATION WITH INVERTIBLE SKEW-SYMMETRIC BINARY SEQUENCES AND INVERSE FILTERING

Application Information

  • Invention Title: METHOD AND SYSTEM USING CODED EXCITATION WITH INVERTIBLE SKEW-SYMMETRIC BINARY SEQUENCES AND INVERSE FILTERING
  • Application Number: 18024315
  • Submission Date: 2025-05-14T00:00:00.000Z
  • Effective Filing Date: 2023-03-02T00:00:00.000Z
  • Filing Date: 2023-03-02T00:00:00.000Z
  • National Class: 367
  • National Sub-Class: 007000
  • Examiner Employee Number: 97243
  • Art Unit: 3645
  • Tech Center: 3600

Rejection Summary

  • 102 Rejections: 0
  • 103 Rejections: 5

Cited Patents

The following patents were cited in the rejection:

Office Action Text


    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 .

Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a).  The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.  Therefore, the “neural network” of claim 27  must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s).  No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.

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.

Claim 27 is 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.
Regarding claim 27, the claim covers a method for increasing signal-to-noise ratio and suppressing range lobe artifacts in medical ultrasound imaging through a decoding filter that is applied with a neural network. The specification as originally filed fails to describe the particulars of the neural network, such as the particular framework, in sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.
Specifically, the specification simply recites the intended use of the neural network as a means of applying the decoding filter, however fails to provide sufficient disclosure regarding how the claimed function is accomplished. For instance, Applicant’s specification at [pg. 5, line 3] merely states the decoding filter is operably applied with a neural network, however does not recite any particulars regarding the framework of the neural network that would describe how the decoding filter is operably applied. Similarly, Applicant’s specification at [pg. 26, line 20] repeats the recitation that the decoding filter is operably applied with a neural network, however does not recite any particulars regarding the framework of the neural network that would describe how the decoding filter is operably applied. Aside the prior mentioned citations, there is no disclosure in Applicant’s specification regarding the particular details of a neural network that is configured to operably apply the decoding filter as required by the limitations of the claim. Whether or not one of ordinary skill in the art could device a way to accomplish the function is not relevant to the issue of whether the inventor has shown possession of the claimed invention (See Blackboard, 574 F.3d at 1385, 91 USPQ2d at 1493). Thus, the written description is inadequate for a person of ordinary skill in the art to conclude the applicant had possession of the claimed invention.

Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement.  The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
An enabling specification must teach those skilled in the art how to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention without undue experimentation. ALZA Corp. v. Andrx Pharms., LLC, 603 F.3d 935, 940 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The undue experimental test is a weighing of multiple factors, including but not limited to the following: (1) the amount of direction provided by the inventor; (2) the existence of working examples; (3) the nature of the invention; (4) the state of the prior art; (5) the level of one of ordinary skill; (6) the level of predictability in the art; and (7) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure. In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737.
Regarding claim 27, the disclosure fails to enable the claimed invention.
Factors 1 & 2 : the amount of direction provided by the inventor and the existence of working examples
The specification recites the claimed neural network in a high level of generality and does not offer any meaningful direction on how to make and use the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant’s disclosure has not provided sufficient information for a person of ordinary skill in the art to make the claimed neural network for operably applying the decoding filter. See rejections under § 112(a). No working example was provided in the disclosure
Although the knowledge of one skilled in the art is indeed relevant, the novel aspect of an invention must be enabled in the patent. Auto. Techs. Int'l, Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 501 F.3d 1274, 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2007). It is the specification, not the knowledge of one skilled in the art that must supply the novel aspects of an invention in order to constitute adequate enablement. Id. at 1283 (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Novo Nordisk NS, 108 F.3d 1361, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). The fact that the disclosure provides neither guidance, nor any working examples, at the point of novelty, commands a finding that undue experimentation is required.
Factors 3 & 4: the nature of the invention and the state of the prior art.
The invention generally relates to a method of increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and suppressing range lobe artifacts through the operable application of a decoding filter through use of a neural network. 
At the time of the invention, use of decoding filters in methods for increasing signal-to-noise and suppressing range lobe artifacts in medical ultrasound imaging is well known (See references below in the Non-Final Office action with respect to claim 1). On the other hand, a decoding filter that is operably applied via a neural network, as covered by the claim, is in early development. The field faces many challenges and lacks a complete solution, including restrictions in Barker code lengths as part of the matched filter comprising the decoding filter (See Gran)
To the extent that the claim covers a method of increasing the signal-to-noise ratio and suppressing range lobe artifacts through the operable application of a decoding filter through use of a neural network that is in the early development phase and faces many challenges, a more detailed disclosure on how to make and use the neural network for the claimed invention is required. Accordingly, factors 3 & 4 weigh strongly towards a finding of non-enabling disclosure.
Factors 5 & 6: the level of one of ordinary skill and the level of predictability in the art.
The level of ordinary skill is high in the field of ultrasound imaging based on the fact that a college degree is required. Thus, less disclosure is required. On the other hand, as discussed in the analysis presented in factor 4, although the use of decoding filters in methods for increasing signal-to-noise ratio and suppressing range lobe artifacts may be well known, the field of operably applying the decoding filters via a neural network faces many challenges and lacks of a complete solution. In other words, the level of predictability is low. Accordingly, factors 5 and 6 weight towards of finding that undue experimentation is required.
Factor 7: the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure.
The specification provides neither guidance nor working example on how to make or use the claimed invention . See factors 1 & 2 analysis. On the other hand, there are many challenges in the field and there is a lack of a complete solution. See factors 3 & 4 analysis. The disclosure is insufficient in view of the high level of generality provided in the specification. See rejections under § 112(a). The technology is unpredictable. See factors 5 & 6 analysis. A person of ordinary skill in the art, facing all the challenges and unpredictability, would require a large amount of experimentation in order to practice the claimed invention lacking any meaningful guidance. Therefore, undue experimentation is required.
	In sum, the following factors favor less disclosure: the level of ordinary skill in the art is high; decoding filters being applied in methods for increasing signal-to-noise ratio and suppressing range lobe artifacts are well-known. The following factors favor more disclosure: neural networks that operably apply a decoding filter in a method for increasing signal-to-noise ratio and suppressing range lobe artifacts are in early development and face many challenges, the filed lacks a complete solution and predictability; there is no meaningful guidance on how to make or use the entire scope of the claimed invention, no disclosure of any working example; the quantity of experimentation needed to make the invention is large based on the content of the disclosure. On balance, the Wands factors show lack of enablement. 
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  17-18, 25, and 54-55 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.

Regarding claim 17, the claim recites the limitation “wherein the decoding chip waveform is designed for a center frequency that is an integer multiple of the center frequency of the encoding chip waveform or the transmitted waveform.” It is unclear what constitutes a decoding chip waveform being “designed for” a center frequency that is an integer multiple of the center frequency of the encoding chip waveform or the transmitted waveform. Currently it is unclear whether the decoding chip waveform’s center frequency must be the an integer multiple of the center frequency of the encoding chip waveform or the transmitted waveform, or whether the “designed for” indicates that some other property of the decoding chip waveform is complementary to the center frequency of the encoding chip waveform or transmitted waveform. Therefore claim 17 is unclear and thus indefinite. 

Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected due to its respective dependence upon a rejected base claim.

Regarding claim 25, the claim is rejected due to its respective dependence upon a rejected base claim.

Regarding claim 54, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 17 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 55, the claim is rejected due to its respective dependence upon a rejected base claim.


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 (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 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(s) 1-3, 5-6, 28-31, 34-35, 37-46, and 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiao et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6155980) in view of Ruprecht et al. ("On the search for good aperiodic binary invertible sequences." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42.5 (1996): 1604-1612).

Regarding claim 1, Chiao discloses a method for increasing signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and suppressing range lobe artifacts, comprising: forming a coded excitation waveform with an encoding chip waveform and a binary sequence ([column 5, lines 6-14], coded excitation waveform is formed with an encoding chip waveform and Golay codes); transmitting the coded excitation waveform into a medium of interest, and receiving signals generated from the medium of interest responsive to excitation from the coded excitation waveform([column 10, lines 3-19], waveforms are transmitted in to the region or volume interest and received by the transmit and receive elements of the transducer); and performing pulse compression on the received signals using a decoding filter to increase the SNR and suppress the range lobe artifacts([column 8 , lines 20-23], decoding filter performs pulse compression on the output signal)([column 1, lines 6-8], invention pertains to methods and apparatuses for increasing SNR of medical ultrasound).
	Chiao may not explicitly teach wherein the binary sequence is an invertible skew-symmetric binary sequence or the Kronecker product of two or more such sequences, wherein the Kronecker product of two sequences a = [a1, a2, ... aNa]and b =[bi, b2, ... bNb] is defined as a x b = (a1b, a2b, a3b,…aNb) where the resulting sequence is of length Na x Nb;
	Ruprecht teaches wherein the binary sequence is an invertible skew-symmetric binary sequence or the Kronecker product of two or more such sequences, wherein the Kronecker product of two sequences a = [a1, a2, ... aNa]and b =[bi, b2, ... bNb] is defined as  a x b = (a1b, a2b, a3b,…aNb) where the resulting sequence is of length Na x Nb ([pg. 6, Kronecker Product Sequences], equation 25 illustrates the Kronecker product of 2 binary sequences meeting the requirements of the claim limitation for determining sequences with large spectral minima and having a desirable noise enhancement factor);
	Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, to include the binary sequence of Ruprecht with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of providing a desirable noise enhancement factor [pg. 6].

Regarding claim 2, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 1. Chiao further teaches wherein the encoding chip waveform is an application- dependent pulse that defines an axial/range resolution of a system and fits within a bandwidth of a transmitter of the system. (Implicit, [column 5, lines 6-14], coded excitation waveform is formed with an encoding chip waveform and Golay codes)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the encoding chip waveform is an application-dependent pulse, as applicant’s specification at [pg. 14, lines 20-22] states that encoding chip waveforms are application-dependent pulses)

Regarding claim 3, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 1. Chiao further teaches wherein the encoding chip waveform is modulated in either frequency, phase, amplitude, or a combination of them. ([column 5, lines 6-14], base sequence is phase encoded)

Regarding claim 5, Chaio, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 1. Ruprecht further teaches wherein the invertible skew-symmetric binary sequence is an odd-length Barker code, or a Kronecker product of two or more odd- length Barker codes. ([pg. 6, Kronecker Product Sequences], Kronecker product of the binary barker sequences of length=13 yields a Kronecker product of length = 169)

Regarding claim 6, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 1. Chiao further teaches wherein said forming the coded excitation waveform comprises convolving the encoding chip waveform with an up-sampled binary sequence. ([column 2, lines 54-56], coded excitation signal is formed by convolving a base sequence with an oversampled code sequence)

Regarding claim 28, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 1. Chiao further teaches being applicable for ultrasound imaging or sensing, active sonar, light detection and ranging (LIDAR), and/or radar. ([column 1, lines 6-8] invention pertains to a method and apparatus for increasing the SNR in medical ultrasound imaging)

Regarding claim 29, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 1 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 30, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 6 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 31, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 7 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.


Regarding claim 34, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 2 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 35, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 3 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 37, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 5 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 38, Chiao as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 29. wherein the probe comprises at least one transducer configured to transmit the coded excitation waveform into the medium of interest, and to receive signals generated from the medium of interest(Fig 1 (10) is a transducer array having a plurality of separately driven elements (12) which may operate as transmitters/receivers if driven by the transmitter (14) or receiver (16)).

Regarding claim 39, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 38. Chiao further teaches wherein the at least one transducer comprises one element or an array of elements. (Fig 1 (10) is a transducer array having a plurality of separately driven elements (12))

Regarding claim 40, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 39. Chiao further teaches wherein the at least one transducer is operable in a pulse-echo sensing mode, and/or in a transmission sensing mode. ([column 1, lines 46-66] transmitters generate ultrasonic pulses and receivers receive echo signals)

Regarding claim 41, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 38, wherein a phase or amplitude of the transmitted coded excitation pulse is either inverted or not inverted with respect to an immediately prior transmitted coded excitation pulse.([column 1, lines 46-66] transmitters generate ultrasonic pulses and receivers receive echo signals)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the phase or amplitude subsequent pulses inherently must be one of either inverted or not inverted with respect to a previous pulse)

Regarding claim 42, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 29. Chiao further teaches wherein the probe comprises one or more transmitters configured to transmit the coded excitation waveform into the medium of interest (Fig. 1 (14)), and one or more receivers configured to receive signals generated from the medium of interest (Fig. 1 (16)).

Regarding claim 43, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 42. Chiao further teaches wherein the probe is operable in a pulse-echo sensing mode, and/or in a transmission sensing mode. ([column 1, lines 46-66] transmitters generate ultrasonic pulses and receivers receive echo signals)

Regarding claim 44, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 42. Chiao further teaches wherein the one or more receivers are configured to receive the echoed or backscattered signals of the transmit coded excitation waveform from the medium of interest. ([column 10, lines 3-19], for each transmit event, the backscattered signal is received at a set of N receive elements)

Regarding claim 45, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 42. Chiao further teaches wherein multiple transmitting/receiving events operably occur, each transmitting event utilizing one or more of the one or more transmitters, each receiving event utilizing some or all of the one or more receivers, and all or some received signals being combined for processing.([column 1, lines 46-66] transmitters generate ultrasonic pulses and receivers receive echo signals)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the phase or amplitude subsequent pulses inherently must be one of either inverted or not inverted with respect to a previous pulse)

Regarding claim 46, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the system of claim 41. Chiao further teaches wherein multiple transmitting/receiving events in which a transmitter first transmits a coded excitation waveform into a medium and a receiver subsequently receives signals generated from the medium responsive to excitation of the coded excitation waveform occur and during which the phase or amplitude of the transmitted coded excitation pulse is either inverted or not inverted with respect to an immediately prior transmitted coded excitation pulse.([column 1, lines 46-66] transmitters generate ultrasonic pulses and receivers receive echo signals)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that the phase or amplitude subsequent pulses inherently must be one of either inverted or not inverted with respect to a previous pulse)

Regarding claim 56, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 28 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Claim(s) 4 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 6155980) in view of Ruprecht et al. ("On the search for good aperiodic binary invertible sequences." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42.5 (1996): 1604-1612) and Hao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20070038108).

Regarding claim 4, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 3. Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, may not explicitly teach, wherein the encoding chip waveform is a linear instantaneous frequency chirp signal.
Hao teaches wherein the encoding chip waveform is a linear instantaneous frequency chirp signal ([0020] coded pulses may be linear frequency modulated chirps).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht to include the linear instantaneous frequency chirp of Hao with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of estimating a number of properties associated with flow or motion from the decoded excitation pulses [0028].

Regarding claim 36, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 4 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Claim(s) 7-12, 26, 32-33, and 47-49 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 6155980) in view of Ruprecht et al. ("On the search for good aperiodic binary invertible sequences." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42.5 (1996): 1604-1612) and Zhao et al. ("Barker-coded ultrasound color flow imaging: Theoretical and practical design considerations." IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 54.2 (2007): 319-331).

Regarding claim 7, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 6. Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, may not explicitly teach wherein the up-sampled binary sequence is generated by up-sampling the binary sequence by a factor that defines the spacing of the encoding chip waveform in the coded excitation waveform.
Zhao teaches wherein the up-sampled binary sequence is generated by up-sampling the binary sequence by a factor that defines the spacing of the encoding chip waveform in the coded excitation waveform.([pg. 2, II. Theory] equation (2) illustrates a base pulse sequence c0(k) being multiplied by an up-sampling factor Tp)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, to include the up-sampled binary sequence of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of adjusting the length of the encoded pulse sequence to a desired value [pg. 2, II. Theory].

Regarding claim 8, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, teaches the method of claim 7. Chiao further teaches wherein the up-sampling factor is greater than or equal to the length of the encoding chip waveform. ([column 3, lines 53-56], golay sequences may be oversampled by padding with zeros being greater or equal to one less than the length of the base sequence)(it is the examiner’s interpretation that this implicitly includes an oversampling factor length greater than or equal to the length of the encoding chip waveform)

Regarding claim 9, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, teaches the method of claim 8. Chiao further teaches wherein the up-sampling factor is equal to the length of the encoding chip waveform.([column 3, lines 53-56], golay sequences may be oversampled by padding with zeros being greater or equal to one less than the length of the base sequence) (it is the examiner’s interpretation that this implicitly includes an oversampling factor length equal to the length of the encoding chip waveform)

Regarding claim 10, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, teaches the method of claim 1. Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, may not explicitly teach wherein said performing the pulse compression comprises forming the decoding filter that serves as an inverse filter approximation for the binary sequence and a matched filter for the chip waveform.
Zhao teaches wherein said performing the pulse compression comprises forming the decoding filter that serves as an inverse filter approximation for the binary sequence and a matched filter for the chip waveform. ([pg. 3, B. Baseband Decoding with Range Sidelobe Suppression], weiner filter acts as a decoding filter that may act as an inverse filter or matched filter based on the scattering strength of the medium)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, to include the decoding filter of Zhao with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of reducing hardware requirements and computational workload [pg. 3, B. Baseband Decoding with Range Sidelobe Suppression].

Regarding claim 11, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao teaches the method of claim 10. Zhao further teaches wherein the decoding filter is a digital finite impulse response (FIR) filter. ([pg. 1], with code lengths of no more than 13, greater than 20dB range lobe suppression can be achieved using a finite impulse response decoding filter)

Regarding claim 12, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao teaches the method of claim 10. Zhao further teaches wherein the decoding filter is an L-tap FIR pseudo- inverse filter. ([pg. 1], with code lengths of no more than 13, greater than 20dB range lobe suppression can be achieved using a finite impulse response decoding filter of reasonable length (16-64 taps)) ([pg. 3, B. Baseband Decoding with Range Sidelobe Suppression], weiner filter acts as a decoding filter that may act as an inverse filter or matched filter based on the scattering strength of the medium. When both speckle and system noise are taken into account, the filter is a pseudo-inverse filter)

Regarding claim 26, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, teaches the method of claim 10. Zhao further teaches wherein the decoding filter is constructed for real- valued or complex-valued data. ([pg. 4, C. Design Rules for Baseband Barker Decoding Sequences], depending on the value of the kp, the decoding filter has either real-valued or complex-valued coefficients) 

Regarding claim 32, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 8 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 33, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 9 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 47, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 10 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 48, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 11 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 49, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 12 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Claim(s) 13-15, 19-24, and 50-52 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 6155980) in view of Ruprecht et al. ("On the search for good aperiodic binary invertible sequences." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42.5 (1996): 1604-1612), Zhao et al. ("Barker-coded ultrasound color flow imaging: Theoretical and practical design considerations." IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 54.2 (2007): 319-331), and Gran et al. ("Coded ultrasound for blood flow estimation using subband processing." IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 55.10 (2008): 2211-2220).

Regarding claim 13, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, teaches the method of claim 12. Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, may not explicitly teach wherein the decoding filter is formed using an inverse spectrum of the binary sequence approximated with a truncated Fourier series. 
Gran teaches wherein the decoding filter is formed using an inverse spectrum of the binary sequence approximated with a truncated Fourier series. ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design] Optimal L tap FIR filter is the inverse discrete Fourier transform of the sampled desired frequency spectrum of the filter)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, to include the decoding filter formation of Gran with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of minimizing the error between the calculated spectrum and desired spectrum [pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design].


Regarding claim 14, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 13. Gran further teaches wherein the inverse filter approximation of the binary sequence is further up-sampled by a factor equal to or greater than the length of the encoding chip waveform used to form the coded excitation waveform. ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], final decoding filter must undergo the same transformation as the code to fit the chip waveform)(equation (19) illustrates the final decoding filter which is the inverse filter approximation of the binary sequence being multiplied by the same up-sampling factor as the encoding chip waveform which would mean they are equal in length)

Regarding claim 15, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 14. Zhao further teaches wherein the decoding filter is further convolved with a decoding chip waveform. ([pg. 2, A. Direct Sequence Encoding], Fig. 2 illustrates a flow chart in which the decoding filter also includes the oversampled decoding sequence illustrated in equation (3))

Regarding claim 19, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, teaches the method of claim 10. Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, may not explicitly teach wherein said forming the decoding filter comprises: computing a discrete-time Fourier transform of the binary sequence to obtain a first spectrum; inverting the first spectrum and applying centering phase shifts on the inverted first spectrum based on a length of the binary sequence and a desired number of filter taps to obtain a second spectrum; performing an inverse discrete-time Fourier transform on the second spectrum to bring it back into the time domain to obtain a filter, wherein the time domain refers to the original domain in which the signal was sampled over units of time; and up-sampling the filter by a factor equal to or greater than the length of the encoding chip waveform used to construct the coded excitation waveform.
Gran teaches wherein said forming the decoding filter comprises: computing a discrete-time Fourier transform of the binary sequence to obtain a first spectrum ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 9 illustrates the discrete-time Fourier transform multiplied by the required M x N Fourier matrix); inverting the first spectrum and applying centering phase shifts on the inverted first spectrum based on a length of the binary sequence and a desired number of filter taps to obtain a second spectrum([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 10 illustrates the required second spectrum); performing an inverse discrete-time Fourier transform on the second spectrum to bring it back into the time domain to obtain a filter, wherein the time domain refers to the original domain in which the signal was sampled over units of time([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 18 illustrates the required L FIR filter coefficient calculation method); and up-sampling the filter by a factor equal to or greater than the length of the encoding chip waveform used to construct the coded excitation waveform.([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 19 illustrates the required decoding filter)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, to include the decoding filter formation steps of Gran with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of minimizing the error between the calculated spectrum and desired spectrum [pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design].

Regarding claim 20, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 19. Zhao further teaches wherein said forming the decoding filter further comprises: convolving the up-sampled filter with a decoding chip waveform to form the decoding filter. ([pg. 2, A. Direct Sequence Encoding], Fig. 2 illustrates a flow chart in which the decoding filter also includes the oversampled decoding sequence illustrated in equation (3))

Regarding claim 21, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 19. Gran further teaches wherein said computing the discrete-time Fourier transform of the binary sequence comprises: computing an M-point discrete-time Fourier transform of the binary sequence, C(), in the form ofwhere c is the binary sequence, Nis length of the binary sequence,f is a frequency that has M evenly spaced samples between the provided bounds--and,fs is an axial sampling frequency; and multiplying theMxNFourier matrix,e-21(fS)n, by the N xI binary sequence,c(n), via a matrix multiplication operation to obtain the first spectrum, C(f), that is an MXI spectrum. ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 9 illustrates the discrete-time Fourier transform multiplied by the required M x N Fourier matrix)

Regarding claim 22 Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 19. Gran further teaches wherein the second spectrum comprises where L is the desired number of filter taps and M > L > N. ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 10 illustrates the required second spectrum)

Regarding claim 23, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 19. Gran further teaches wherein said performing the inverse discrete-time Fourier transform on the second spectrum comprises: computing the first L FIR filter coefficients, h(l), in the time domain by multiplying the second spectrum D (f) by an M x L Fourier matrix, e2j(M, in the form of ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 18 illustrates the required L FIR filter coefficient calculation method)

Regarding claim 24, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 19. Gran further teaches wherein the decoding filter comprises wherein Tj, is the up-sampling factor which is the product of the encoding chip spacing in the coded excitation waveform, Tp, and the axial sampling frequency, fs-and p is the decoding chip waveform. ([pg. 3, II. Code and Waveform Design], equation 19 illustrates the required decoding filter)

Regarding claim 50, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 13 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 51, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 14 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Regarding claim 52, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 15 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.

Claim(s) 16 and 53 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chiao et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 6155980) in view of Ruprecht et al. ("On the search for good aperiodic binary invertible sequences." IEEE Transactions on Information Theory 42.5 (1996): 1604-1612), Zhao et al. ("Barker-coded ultrasound color flow imaging: Theoretical and practical design considerations." IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 54.2 (2007): 319-331), Gran et al. ("Coded ultrasound for blood flow estimation using subband processing." IEEE transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 55.10 (2008): 2211-2220) and Lu et al. ("Method to develop coded excitation for velocimetry in downhole drilling." 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer and Information Technology; Ubiquitous Computing and Communications; Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing; Pervasive Intelligence and Computing. IEEE, 2015).

Regarding claim 16, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao and Gran, teaches the method of claim 15. Gran further teaches wherein the transmitter emits the coded excitation waveform into a medium and the receiver receives the signals generated from the medium responsive to excitation of the coded excitation waveform, wherein the transmitter and receiver are the same entity or multiple entities ([pg. 6, A. Experimental Setup], measurements were carried out utilizing a linear array transducer which scanned a circulating flow rig); 
Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao and Gran, may not explicitly teach wherein the decoding chip waveform is a measured impulse response of the transmitter and/or receiver.
Lu teaches wherein the decoding chip waveform is a measured impulse response of the transmitter and/or receiver. ([pg. 2], equation 2 illustrates the received signal from the decoding phase incorporates PB(n) which corresponds to the impulse response of the probe)
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art of ultrasonic imaging, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran to include the measured impulse response of Lu with a reasonable expectation of success, with the motivation of representing the received signal based on the impulse response of the probe [pg. 3, II. Methodology].

Regarding claim 53, the claim is a system claim corresponding to claim 16 and is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18, 25, and 54-55 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 as and any intervening claims, along with remedying the relevant 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter upon remedy of the standing 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections:  

Regarding claim 17, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran, teaches the method of claim 15. Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht, Zhao, and Gran may not explicitly teach The method of claim 15, wherein the decoding chip waveform is designed for a center frequency that is an integer multiple of the center frequency of the encoding chip waveform or the transmitted waveform. (None of Chiao, Ruprecht, Zhao, or Gran, teach that the decoding chip waveform is an integer multiple of the center frequency of the encoding chip waveform or the transmitted waveform. No other identified prior art teaches these limitations as well)

Regarding claim 18, the claim is indicated as objected to being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim as and any intervening claims, along with remedying the relevant 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, due to its respective dependence upon claim 17.

Regarding claim 25 the claim is indicated as objected to being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim as and any intervening claims, along with remedying the relevant 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, due to its respective dependence upon claim 18.

Regarding claim 27, Chiao, as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao, teaches the method of claim 10. Chiao as modified in view of Ruprecht and Zhao may not explicitly teach wherein the decoding filter is operably applied with a neural network. (None of Chiao, Ruprecht, Zhao, nor any other identified prior art teaches the decoding filter of claim 10 being operably applied via a neural network)

Regarding claim 54, the claim is indicated as objected to being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim as and any intervening claims, along with remedying the relevant 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, for the same reasons as outlined above with respect to claim 17.

Regarding claim 55, the claim is indicated as objected to being allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim as and any intervening claims, along with remedying the relevant 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections, due to its respective dependence upon claim 54.


Conclusion
Prior art made of record though not relied upon in the present basis of rejection are noted in the attached PTO 892 and include:
Ralston et al. (U.S. Patent Application No. 20160331353) which discloses an autonomous ultrasonic probe and related apparatus and methods
Zemp (U.S. Patent Application No. 20160065323) which discloses a coded imaging and multi-user communications system
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER whose telephone number is (571)272-6136. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Yuqing Xiao can be reached on 571-270-3603. 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.





/CHRISTOPHER RICHARD WALKER/Examiner, Art Unit 3645                                                                                                                                                                                                        
/YUQING XIAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3645


Retrieved from "https://wikipatents.org/index.php?title=Patent_Application_18024315_-_METHOD_AND_SYSTEM_USING_CODED_EXCITATION_WITH_-_Rejection&oldid=580285"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.