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 .
Response to Amendment
This action is in response to the remarks filed on 07/27/2026.
The amendments filed on 07/27/2026 have been entered. Applicant has presently canceled claim 3 and added new claims 21-26. Accordingly claims 1, 4-5, 7-8, and 12-26 are pending. Claims 1, 17, and 18 are presently amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments regarding the single degree of freedom variable being a negative percentage or a percentage greater than 100 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner acknowledges that Yasunori was previously relied on to teach a percentage between 0-100 not a negative percentage or a percentage greater than 100 as presently claimed. However, secondary reference Chono teaches the following in paragraph [0106]:
“The thick lines in FIG. 12 show the positions for newly starting boundary extraction that are changed from P2 of the first embodiment to P7 and from P3 of the first embodiment to P8 respectively. The amount for changing the positions are manually adjusted each time using boundary fine-adjustment button 205. For example, if the amount of change is set in the negative direction the starting position is set toward a media region as shown in FIG. 12, and if the amount of change is set in the positive direction the starting position is set toward a lumen side for an outer-membrane side boundary and toward an outer-membrane side for a lumen side boundary. FIG. 12 is a view showing the case that boundary extraction is executed from the halfway of media region toward the lumen or the outer-membrane by changing the boundary extraction starting position in the negative direction. FIG. 12 shows a case that a boundary extracting position is set in the negative direction, and boundary extraction is executed from the midway of a media region toward a lumen or an outer membrane. Also, the starting points may be set for the outer-membrane side boundary and the lumen side boundary separately. The setting range of the amount of change is within the range where the starting positions of the outer-membrane side and of the lumen side are not overlapped.”
Therefore, Chono teaches the amended limitation of wherein the single degree of freedom variable is user-adjustable to place the user-defined border: (i) within the inner boundary via a negative percentage; or (ii) beyond the outer boundary via a percentage greater than 100
Applicant's arguments regarding the limitations of presently canceled claim 3 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Yasunori does not disclose or suggest the specifically recited anatomical boundaries. However, Yasunori teaches, in paragraph [0034], that the inner contour is on the heart chamber side which would be the endocardium as claimed and Yasunori also teaches that the outer contour is an outer surface of the myocardium which would be the epicardium as claimed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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, 4-5, 7-8, and 12-26 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.
Claims 1, 17, and 19 recite the limitation “the user-adjusted user-defined border” in the last line of each claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further clarification is required.
Claims 22 and 25 recite the limitations “an inner boundary”, “an outer boundary”, and “a myocardium” which renders the claims indefinite because it is unclear whether these are the same limitations previously recited in independent claims 17 and 19. For the present purposes of examination, they have been treated as being the same. Further clarification is required.
Claims dependent upon a claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected under the same statute because they each inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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.
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 1, 3-5, 7-8, and 12-17, 19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunori et al. (JP2010259656A, November 18, 2010, Toshiba Corp, Applicant submitted prior art via the IDS, hereinafter “Yasunori”) in view of Chono (US 2012/0083698, April 5, 2012), and Salgo (US 2007/0016019, January 18, 2007).
Regarding claims 1, 17, and 19, as best understood in light of the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection stated above, Yasunori discloses an ultrasonic diagnostic imaging system (and corresponding process and permanent memory device) for determining the border of a chamber of the heart in an ultrasound image comprising:
a source of cardiac image data (image memory 25, Fig. 1 and corresponding description, also see e.g. myocardium, i.e. cardiac image data [0033]);
a user control (input device 13, Fig. 1 and corresponding description, slider 51a [0042], Fig. 6 and corresponding description, [0034], [0040]-[0046]); and
a processor (control processor 26, Fig. 1 and corresponding description) configured to:
responsive to the cardiac image data, identify at least an inner boundary and an outer boundary of a myocardium in the cardiac image data (“the image analysis unit 29 analyzes the display image developed in the image memory 25 in the image memory 25, extracts the contour of the myocardium [...] an outline extracted for a surface on the heart chamber side is referred to as an inner contour, and a contour extracted for an outer surface of the myocardium is referred to as an outer contour” [0033]-[0034]), wherein the inner boundary is an endocardium or a myocardium-blood pool interface (“an outline extracted for a surface on the heart chamber side is referred to as an inner contour” [0034]), and wherein the outer boundary of a myocardium is an epicardium or an interface between the trabeculated myocardium and the compacted myocardium (“a contour extracted for an outer surface of the myocardium is referred to as an outer contour” [0034]);
cause to be displayed the outer boundary (outer contour depicted as dashed line in Fig. 6, re-produced below with annotations, and corresponding description);
cause to be displayed a user-defined border representing a border of a heart chamber defined, at least in part, by the myocardium, in the cardiac image data (corrected inner contour depicted as dashed line in Fig. 6 and corresponding description; also see “extracts the contour of the myocardium” [0033], also see [0034], [0039]), wherein the user-defined border is displayed distinctly from the inner boundary and the outer boundary identified by the processor (inner contour corrected as a trace line uses user inputted correction factor, Fig. 5 and corresponding description, [0041]-[0045]; Examiner notes that as depicted in e.g. Fig. 5, the user-defined border, i.e. trace line through points Pc, is distinct from the inner boundary determined by the processor, i.e. line through points Pd, and the outer boundary determined by the processor, i.e. line at 100% ); and
PNG
media_image1.png
472
599
media_image1.png
Greyscale
receive, via the user control an adjustment (“The control processor 26 receives a request for changing the correction rate as an operation of moving the slider 51 a included in the GUI 51 to the left and right, for example.” [0042]) of a single degree of freedom variable to indicate a user-defined border of the heart chamber in relation to the inner boundary and outer boundary, wherein the single degree of freedom variable is user-adjustable to place the user-defined border: (i) within the inner boundary via a percentage; or (ii) beyond the outer boundary via a percentage (“The position which intersects 0% of position and an outer contour in the position (position of change point Pd) which intersects an inner contour in the position on the altitude of an inner contour is more specifically made into 100% of position” [0040]; also see Fig. 5 and corresponding description); and
cause to be displayed the user-adjusted user-defined border (“In step Sa 9, the control processor 26 updates the contour image superimposed on the display image in step Sa 8.” [0045]).
Yasunori fails to disclose the processor being configured to cause to be displayed the inner boundary. Although examiner notes that in a different embodiment when a user-defined border is not required, Yasunori does teach display of the inner boundary (e.g. see Fig 3 and corresponding description).
However, Chono teaches, in the same field of endeavor, displaying an inner boundary (L12, Fig. 6A, re-produced below, and corresponding description) and an outer boundary (L23, Fig. 6A and corresponding description). Chono also teaches a user-defined border being displayed distinctly from the inner boundary and the outer boundary (L12ap or L23ap in Fig. 6A and corresponding description; also see [0060]-[0062], claim 13; examiner notes that this particular feature was already disclosed by Yasunori as stated above but is also additionally taught by Chono).
PNG
media_image2.png
247
655
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yasunori with the processor being configured to cause to be displayed the inner boundary as taught by Chono in order to provide a more robust visual aid to a clinician.
Further, Yasunori does not explicitly disclose, the user-defined border is simultaneously displayed with the inner boundary and the outer boundary identified by the processor. Examiner notes that Yasunori in combination with Chono already disclose the display of the inner boundary and the outer boundary.
However, Salgo teaches, in the same field of endeavor, a user-defined border is displayed simultaneously with and automatic border (see Fig. 9, reproduced below, and corresponding description; Examiner notes that the inner boundary and outer boundary which were previously taught above are analogous to the automatic border).
PNG
media_image3.png
224
312
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yasunori with the user-defined border is simultaneously displayed with the inner boundary and the outer boundary identified by the processor as taught by Salgo in order to provide a more robust visual aid to a clinician for making manual adjustments.
Although Yasunori discloses wherein the single degree of freedom variable is user-adjustable to place the user-defined border according to a percentage, as stated above, Yasunori fails to disclose wherein the single degree of freedom variable is user-adjustable to place the user-defined border: (i) within the inner boundary via a negative percentage; or (ii) beyond the outer boundary via a percentage greater than 100.
However, Chono teaches, in the same field of endeavor, wherein the single degree of freedom variable is user-adjustable to place the user-defined border: (i) within the inner boundary via a negative percentage; or (ii) beyond the outer boundary via a percentage greater than 100 (“The thick lines in FIG. 12 show the positions for newly starting boundary extraction that are changed from P2 of the first embodiment to P7 and from P3 of the first embodiment to P8 respectively. The amount for changing the positions are manually adjusted each time using boundary fine-adjustment button 205. For example, if the amount of change is set in the negative direction the starting position is set toward a media region as shown in FIG. 12, and if the amount of change is set in the positive direction the starting position is set toward a lumen side for an outer-membrane side boundary and toward an outer-membrane side for a lumen side boundary. FIG. 12 is a view showing the case that boundary extraction is executed from the halfway of media region toward the lumen or the outer-membrane by changing the boundary extraction starting position in the negative direction. FIG. 12 shows a case that a boundary extracting position is set in the negative direction, and boundary extraction is executed from the midway of a media region toward a lumen or an outer membrane. Also, the starting points may be set for the outer-membrane side boundary and the lumen side boundary separately. The setting range of the amount of change is within the range where the starting positions of the outer-membrane side and of the lumen side are not overlapped.” [0106]; also see Fig. 12 and corresponding description).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yasunori with wherein the single degree of freedom variable is user-adjustable to place the user-defined border: (i) within the inner boundary via a negative percentage; or (ii) beyond the outer boundary via a percentage greater than 100 as taught by Chono in order to reduce the influence of noise in boundary extraction ([0107] of Chono).
Regarding claim 4, Yasunori further discloses wherein the user control further comprises a slider (slider 51a [0042], Fig. 6 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 5, Yasunori further discloses wherein the user control further comprises a softkey control or a physical control ([0018], [0042]).
Regarding claim 7, Yasunori further discloses wherein the source of cardiac image data further comprises a memory device containing two-dimensional or three-dimensional cardiac images (“The image memory 25 stores the data of the display image for display on the monitor 14 in a state in which the data is developed” [0024]; e.g. B-mode processing [0021]).
Regarding claim 8, Yasunori further discloses wherein the source of cardiac image data is adapted to provide the border detection processor with the two-dimensional or the three-dimensional cardiac images including a view of a left ventricle (“left ventricle” [0035], [0055]).
Regarding claim 12, Yasunori further discloses wherein the processor is further operable to identify at least one of the inner boundary or the outer boundary of the myocardium in cardiac image data without user input (“contour automatically extracted” [0012], [0032]-[0034]).
Regarding claim 13, Yasunori further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to produce display traces of the inner and outer myocardium boundaries (“In step Sa2, the control processor 26 generates a contour image for representing the extracted contour in the display image based on the contour notified from the image analysis unit 29 as described above” [0037], Fig. 1 and corresponding description); and a display, coupled to the source of cardiac image data and to the processor, which is arranged to display a cardiac image with traced inner and outer myocardium boundaries (monitor 14, Fig. 1 and corresponding description, [0041], Fig. 3 and corresponding description).
Regarding claim 14, Yasunori further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to produce a display trace of the user-defined heart chamber border (“In step Sa9, the control processor 26 updates the contour image superimposed and displayed on the display image to the one corrected in step Sa8. Thereafter, the control processor 26 shifts to the standby state of steps Sa10 and 11.” [0045], [0041]-[0044], Figs. 3,6, and corresponding descriptions); and a display, coupled to the source of cardiac image data and to the processor, which is arranged to display a cardiac image with a user-traced heart chamber border (monitor 14, Fig. 1 and corresponding description, [0041], [0045], Figs. 3,6 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 15, Yasunori discloses wherein the function of the distance between the inner boundary and the outer boundary is a percentage displacement of the location of the user-defined border relative to the inner boundary and the outer boundary (Figs. 5, 6 and corresponding descriptions).
Regarding claim 16, Yasunori discloses wherein the distance between the inner boundary and the outer boundary is measured along a direction orthogonal to the inner boundary (Figs. 4, 5 and corresponding description; also see “straight line (indicated by a broken line in FIG.4) orthogonal to [...]” [0035]).
Regarding claims 21 and 24, Yasunori discloses wherein the cardiac image data comprises two-dimensional or three-dimensional cardiac images (B-mode processing [0021]; also see [0002]).
Regarding claims 22 and 25, Yasunori discloses wherein identifying at least an inner boundary and an outer boundary of a myocardium in the cardiac image data comprises identifying without user input (“contour automatically extracted” [0012], [0032]-[0034]).
Regarding claims 23 and 26, Yasunori discloses causing to be displayed traces of the inner and outer myocardium boundaries (“In step Sa2, the control processor 26 generates a contour image for representing the extracted contour in the display image based on the contour notified from the image analysis unit 29 as described above” [0037], Fig. 1 and corresponding description).
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yasunori in view of Chono and Salgo as applied to claims 17 and 19 above and further in view of Toma et al. (US 2014/0334706, November 13, 2014, hereinafter “Toma”).
Regarding claims 18 and 20, Yasunori modified by Chono and Salgo discloses the limitations of claims 17 and 19 as stated above. Yasunori further discloses wherein the user-defined border is represented by a numerical value corresponding to the function of the distance between the inner boundary and the outer boundary (see percentages in Figs. 5, 6 and corresponding descriptions).
Although Yasunori further suggests and the value is shared to a second user control input in response to a share request (“Further, according to the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100, since the standard correction rate is updated based on the correction value set according to the instruction of the user, the standard correction rate can be automatically learned in consideration of the setting of the correction rate by the doctor having the high skill as described above.” [0053]), in an alternative interpretation, Yasunori may be construed as not disclosing and the value is shared to a second user control input in response to a share request.
However, Toma teaches, in the same field of endeavor, and the value is shared to a second user control input in response to a share request (“The manual correction unit 2303 corrects the blood vessel contour image included in the ultrasound image specified by the specification unit 2302 according to user input, and stores the result of the correction to the post-correction contour memory 2304.” [0050]; also see “Further, a modification may be made such that positions of vertices of contour images obtained as a result of manual correction and automatic correction are stored, and a contour image that reflects information editing having been previously performed is displayed when the user examines a same input ultrasound image for the second time. Further, a modification may also be made such that, when the user is to examine a same blood vessel region multiple times for certain purposes such as checking a chronological change in a plaque over years, the shape of the plaque observed in the previous examination is displayed in addition to the present shape of the plaque, whereby the user is enabled to compare the past and present shapes of the plaque.” [0173]).
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Yasunori with and the value is shared to a second user control input in response to a share request as taught by Toma in order to consistently track a patient over time ([0173] of Toma).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMINAH ASGHAR whose telephone number is (571)272-0527. The examiner can normally be reached M-W, 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. 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.
/A.A./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
