Tetsuya Taniguchi

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2020

2019002336 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/194,124 02/28/2014 Tetsuya TANIGUCHI 14095 5218
1933 7590 09/22/2020
HOLTZ, HOLTZ & VOLEK PC
630 NINTH AVENUE
SUITE 1010
NEW YORK, NY 10036-3744
EXAMINER
SIRIPURAPU, RAJEEV P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3793
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USPTO@HHPATENT.COM
pair_hhgc@cpaglobal.com
rlevinsohn@hhpatent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TETSUYA TANIGUCHI
____________

Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1 and 3–7. We have jurisdiction over the pending
rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Konica Minolta, Inc. as the real party
in interest. (Appeal Br. 2.)
Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to an
ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus including an ultrasound probe and a
transmission unit, which makes the ultrasound probe generate the
transmission ultrasound by outputting a pulse signal whose drive waveform
is formed of rectangular waves. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. An ultrasound diagnostic imaging apparatus, comprising:
a processor;
an ultrasound probe which outputs transmission
ultrasound toward a subject due to a pulse signal of four or five
values being input and which outputs a received signal by
receiving reflected ultrasound from the subject; and
a signal transmission circuit comprising:
a duty setter which sets a duty ratio of the pulse
signal; and
a pulse generator circuit which generates the pulse
signal of four or five values whose drive waveform is formed of
rectangular waves according to the duty ratio set by the duty
setter,
wherein the processor is configured to control the signal
transmission circuit to make the ultrasound probe generate the
transmission ultrasound by outputting the pulse signal
generated by the pulse generator circuit,
wherein the processor is further configured to control the
duty setter to set the duty ratio of the pulse signal so that: (i) a
frequency power spectrum of the pulse signal has intensity
peaks in a frequency band that is included in a transmission
frequency band at -20dB of the ultrasound probe, wherein the
frequency power spectrum of the pulse signal includes an
intensity peak in the transmission frequency band on a low
Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

3
frequency side of a center frequency of the transmission
frequency band at -20dB of the ultrasound probe and includes
an intensity peak in the transmission frequency band on a high
frequency side of the center frequency of the transmission
frequency band at - 20dB of tile ultrasound probe, and (ii) an
intensity of an entire frequency region between the intensity
peaks of the pulse signal is -20dB or greater relative to a
maximum intensity value from among intensity values of the
intensity peaks, whereby the duty setter sets the duty ratio so
that the intensity between the intensity peaks on the low
frequency side and the high frequency side of the center
frequency is -20dB or greater relative to the maximum intensity
value from among the intensity values of the intensity peaks;
wherein the processor is further configured to control the
signal transmission circuit to output a plurality of pulse signals
of four or five values and of different drive waveforms on a
same scanning line for a plurality of times with a time interval
therebetween, and
wherein the processor is further configured to perform
control to (i) combine received signals obtained from the
reflected ultrasound of the transmission ultrasound generated by
outputting the plurality of pulse signals, and (ii) generate
ultrasound image data based on a composite pulse signal.
Appeal Br. 25–26. (Claims Appendix.)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Taniguchi (US 2013/0006113 A1, pub. Jan. 3,
2013), Ohnuma et al (US 2012/0310091 A1, pub. Dec. 6, 2012) (hereinafter
“Ohnuma”), Takimoto (US 2006/0079779 A1, pub. Apr. 13, 2006), and
Kristoffersen et al (US 2004/0254459 A1, pub. Dec. 16, 2004) (hereinafter
“Kristoffersen”). (Final Act. 5.)

Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

4
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief presents the following
issue:2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Taniguchi,
Ohnuma, Takimoto, and Kristoffersen teaches or suggests the limitation of
(ii) an intensity of an entire frequency region between the
intensity peaks of the pulse signal is -20dB or greater relative to
a maximum intensity value from among intensity values of the
intensity peaks, whereby the duty setter sets the duty ratio so
that the intensity between the intensity peaks on the low
frequency side and the high frequency side of the center
frequency is -20dB or greater relative to the maximum intensity
value from among the intensity values of the intensity peaks,
as recited in independent claim 1, and the commensurate limitation recited in
independent claim 7. (Appeal Br. 8–23.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
In finding that the combination of Taniguchi and Ohnuma teaches or
suggests the independent claim 1 limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on
Taniguchi’s disclosure of an ultrasound transmitting section driving an
electric signal having plural frequency components and using a rectangular

2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Aug. 27, 2018); the Reply
Brief (filed Jan. 24, 2019); the Final Office Action (mailed Apr. 2, 2018);
and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 29, 2018) for the respective
details.
Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

5
wave burst having an adjustable duty cycle. (Final Act. 5–6; Taniguchi Figs.
2 and 4–7, ¶¶ 32–40 and 45–57.)
The Examiner further relies on the Ohnuma’s disclosure of (i)
tracking of setting a duty ratio based in part on the characteristics of the
transducer such that the frequency band of the transmit frequency
completely covers the frequency band of the transducer, and (ii) the
frequency band of the baseband component depending on the pulse width of
reflected ultrasound, regardless of the frequency of transmission ultrasound,
and thereby as the pulse width decreases, the frequency of the baseband
component increases. (Final Act. 6–7; Ohnuma Figs. 2–5 and 11, ¶¶ 4–8,
15, 19, 43, 46–51, 60, 68–72, and 89–94.)
Appellant argues that “the technique of Taniguchi is not preferable for
B-mode imaging” because “the reception signal obtained by the waveform
of the drive signal in Taniguchi has a plurality of maximum values.” (Reply
Br. 7; see also Appeal Br. 12–15 and Declaration 1–9.) Appellant contends
that “the technique to which Taniguchi is directed (for calculating particle
diameters based on intensity ratios) would, itself, not be improved by the
modification set forth by the Examiner.” (Reply Br. 8.)
Appellant further contends that “as illustrated in Fig. 11 of Ohnuma, a
frequency power spectrum of a pulse signal includes only one peak.
Ohnuma makes no mention nor suggestion of a frequency power spectrum
having a plurality of peaks” (Reply Br. 8–9, citing Ohnuma ¶ 68, emphasis
in original), so that “in Ohnuma, the focusing point of the sound pressure
can exist only at one point even when the band is a broad band, and
therefore a good image signal can be obtained only around the one point.”
(Reply Br. 10, emphasis in original.)
Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

6
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that
the rejection as written is over Taniguchi in view of Ohnuma,
which starts with the technique of Taniguchi with multiple
peaks and merely modifies the relative intensities of said peaks
as suggested as beneficial in Ohnuma
and
Ohnuma specifically indicates a well-known solution for poor
distance resolution. Ohnuma in essence provides a well-known
and predictable improvement for the Taniguchi method to
enhance bandwidth and consequently, resolution and imaging
depth of the Taniguchi method.
(Ans. 3.) It appears that the Examiner is referencing two portions of
Ohnuma. The first portion states that:
[t]he transmitting section 12 sets the duty ratio of a pulse signal
so that one of peaks of the first step response of the transducer
which is generated when a change is made to voltage of the
pulse signal overlaps with one of peaks of the second step
response of the transducer which is generated when another
change is made to the voltage of the pulse signal. As a result,
the amplitude of transmission ultrasound can be efficiently
amplified and at the same time, pulse width can be decreased,
and thereby the transmission ultrasound can be allowed to
have a broadband to output transmission ultrasound
exhibiting excellent spatial resolution and reaching depth.
Further, in the case of use of a broadband ultrasound probe, its
band can be efficiently utilized and thereby the fundamental
component of reflected ultrasound obtained from transmission
ultrasound and a harmonic component due to non-linearity
such as a secondary harmonic component and a baseband
component generated due to traveling of transmission
ultrasound in the interior of an examined subject can be
efficiently received.
(Ohnuma ¶ 89, emphasis added.) The second portion states that:

Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

7
according to the present embodiment, the transmitting section
12 outputs a pulse signal such that the frequency band
characteristic of transmission ultrasound generated by the
transducer 2a is wider than that of the transducer 2a. Thereby,
the frequency band of a transducer can be utilized to a
maximum extent.
(Ohnuma ¶ 91, emphasis added.) Ohnuma teaches that setting the duty ratio
so that “one of [the] peaks of the first step response” then “overlaps with one
of [the] peaks of the second step response” results in “the amplitude of
transmission ultrasound [being] efficiently amplified.” (Ohnuma ¶ 89.)
However, these teachings do not meet the claim language requiring
“the intensity between the intensity peaks on the low frequency side and
the high frequency side of the center frequency is -20dB or greater relative
to the maximum intensity value from among the intensity values of the
intensity peaks,” as the teachings merely describes an amplified amplitude of
transmission and fully utilizing the frequency band of a transducer.
Additionally, the record does not establish that such one skilled in the art
could reach the claim language via a “predictable improvement” made to
Taniguchi.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 7 commensurate in scope,
and all dependent claims not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 24.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–7 103(a) Taniguchi,
Ohnuma, Takimoto,
Kristoffersen
1, 3–7
Appeal 2019-002336
Application 14/194,124

8

REVERSED