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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
the amendment of 03/16/2026 has been entered and fully considered by the examiner.
claims 1, 6, 8, and 9 have been amended. Claims 3, and 11-19 have been canceled. claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are currently pending in the application with claims 1, 8, and 9 being independent.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 8, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1, 8, and 9 recite: “display thumbnails images”, and then the next step requires “receiving a user selection of an optimal heart beat”. Since what was being displayed was actually thumbnail images (corresponding to heartbeats), it is recommended that the same terminology be used throughout the claim reciting “displaying a plurality of thumbnail images corresponding to a plurality of heartbeats” and then “receive a user selection of one of the pluralities of thumbnail images”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 2, and 4-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: YES –
Independent claims 1 and 8 are directed towards an apparatus including processing circuitry which is one of the patentable statutory categories.
Claim 9 is directed towards a method which is one of the patentable statutory categories
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: YES – independent claims 1, 8, and 9 recite the limitations including “acquiring a quantitative value indicating the cardiac function”, “acquire multiple contour candidates representing the changed quantitative value”, “and “superimposing the multiple contour candidates on an ultrasound image represented by the acquired ultrasonic image data”, and “associate the selected contour with the changed quantitative value”.
These limitations, as drafted, are a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind of a practitioner or with the help of a pen and paper but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuitry,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind or with the aid of a pen and paper. For example, but for the “processing circuitry” language, the claim encompasses acquiring ultrasound data, acquiring multiple contours and superimposing them on an ultrasound image, and association of the contour with an ultrasound image.
Performing these tasks are possible in the mind of a practitioner who has access to a database in his brain or on a generic computer and can compare the image with the data base which at the very most only requires a generic computer. The contour and quantitive value generation are also possible using a pen and paper and using mathematical formula. The mere nominal recitation of a generic network appliance does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claims recite additional elements: “acquiring ultrasound image data generated by an ultrasound probe”, “displaying thumbnail images”, “receiving user selection of he optimal heartbeat”, “freezing the screen”, “display a quantitive value”, “receiving a user input to change the quantitative value”, “display multiple contour candidates on a display” and “receiving a user operation via the GUI of a particular contour”.
The data acquiring, user input acquiring and outputting steps are recited at a high level of generality (i.e., as a general means of obtaining data and outputting it), and amounts to mere data gathering, and data sharing, which is a form of insignificant extra-solution activity. The processing circuitry that performs the obtaining step and the outputting step is also recited at a high level of generality, and merely automates the obtaining step and the outputting step. Each of the additional limitations is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processing circuitry).
The combination of these additional elements is no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component (the processing circuitry). Accordingly, even in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to the abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - As discussed with respect to Step 2A Prong Two, the additional elements in the claim amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The same analysis applies here in 2B, i.e., mere instructions to apply an exception on a generic computer cannot integrate a judicial exception into a practical application at Step 2A or provide an inventive concept in Step 2B. Under the 2019 PEG, a conclusion that an additional element is insignificant extra-solution activity in Step 2A should be re-evaluated in Step 2B. Here, the initial value collecting step and outputting steps were considered to be extra-solution activity in Step 2A, and thus it is re-evaluated in Step 2B to determine if it is more than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field. The background of the example does not provide any indication that the processing circuitry is anything other than a generic, off-the-shelf computer component, and the Symantec, TLI, and OIP Techs. court decisions cited in MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) indicate that mere collection or receipt of data over a network is a well‐understood, routine, and conventional function when it is claimed in a merely generic manner (as it is here). Accordingly, a conclusion that the collecting and comparing step is well-understood, routine, conventional activity is supported under Berkheimer Option 2. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim, and thus it is ineligible.
Dependent Claims
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons:
Details of multiple contour acquiring step (claims 2, and 4-6) - If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, he/she would be able to determine adjust a adjust a location for determination of the contour and change the position of the contour accordingly with the help of a pen and paper; preset a number of points in his/her mind and trace the contours to pass the point which could include an apex or annulus of a hear.
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons:
outputting a warning (claims 7);
selecting only certain image data via GUI (claims 10);
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 1, 2, and 4-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, 8, and 9 claims recites the steps of acquiring a quantitative value, displaying it and then receiving a user input to change the displayed quantitative value. These steps are NOT disclosed in the specification as part of the method. FIG. 5 is a flow chart of the instant process, and does not disclose such a step as part of the process. The specification also fails to disclose such a step in the method. The only mention of a user changing the quantitative value is in the case where the system can not acquire the contours and the system then displays a warning sign asking the user to either change the quantitative value, preset number of contour candidates or the feature point. This is quite different from what is being claims as including the step of changing of the quantitative value as part of the method. There is also no support in the specification for the limitations “acquiring multiple candidates representing the changed quantitative value” and “associate the selected contour with the changed quantitative value as a confirmed pair to be used in subsequent processing by the ultrasound apparatus”. As a result, the claims are considered to contain new matter and lack support in the specification.
Claims 2, 4-7 and 10 depend upon unsupported claims 1, 8, and 9 and are considered to lack support as well due to their dependency.
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, 2, and 4-10 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.
The term “optimal” in claims 1, 8, and 9 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “optimal” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In particular, it is not clear what criteria would determine that a heartbeat is “optimal”. The term is not defined by the specification and therefore is open to the subjective interpretation of the reader. As a result, the claims are considered to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claims are not clear.
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 9, claims recite the limitation “associate the selected one contour with the changed quantitative value as a confirmed pair to be used in subsequent processing by the image processing apparatus”. This limitation is unclear and indefinite as it is not clear what a “confirmed pair” is referring to and in what capacity the contour and quantitive value are being “associated” with each other? Further, it is not clear what “subsequent processing” is the claim referring to and whether the recited subsequent processing is also part of the method? As a result, the claim is considered to be indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Claims 1, 8, and 9 further recites the step of “performing a display image freeze operation”. This limitation is entirely confusing and unclear since there is not any indication of anything being displayed prior to this action. What was being displayed before that is being frozen? As a result, the claims are unclear and indefinite as the metes and bounds of the claims are not clear
Claims 1, 8, and 8 recites the limitation "the displayed quantitive value" in claim language. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further it is not clear what is the relationship between the recited “the displayed quantitative value”, “the acquired quantitative value”, “the change quantitive value” and “a quantitative value” recited in the claim.
Claims 1 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: a display, and a user input (GUI). The claims have recited steps of “freezing operation of display” and “receiving input from a user”, however, the claims do not include any elements that would be capable of performing these operations as part of the apparatus. It is not clear how can a processor receive input from a user without any interface? Or freeze the display without the apparatus having a display device. The applicant is advised to either change the language of the claims such that they only recite sending and receiving commands and data to and from external device or include the required elements as part of the apparatus.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the quantitative value manually inputted" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Further, it is not clear what is the relationship between the recited “the quantitative value manually inputted” and “a quantitative value” and further “the changed quantitative value” causing confusion and indefiniteness.
Regarding claim 10, claim recites: “select, via the GUI, ultrasonic image data out of the acquired ultrasonic image data”. It is entirely unclear and indefinite as to how a processor can select an ultrasound image via GUI? Further, is the selected ultrasound image the same as the optimal heartbeat image selected in claim 1 upon which claim 10 depends? Or is this a separate step. As a result, the claim is considered to be indefinite and unclear as the metes and bounds of the claim are not clear.
Response to Arguments
Rejection of claims under U.S.C. 101
With regards to added amendment to the claims, the applicant has argued that the addition of the amendments and more specifically, echo signals received by an ultrasound probe, processed by imaging circuitry and image generation significantly adds to the abstract idea.
In response, the examiner notes that firstly, the imaging, processing and image generation steps/elements are not claimed positively as part of the method/apparatus. The claims merely indicate acquiring such data which is a pre-solutionary and data gathering step. Further, the ultrasound probe, processing and generating are claimed in a very general high-level language which fail to add significantly to the abstract idea.
The applicant has further disclosed that freezing the display image, displaying thumbnail images, selection of a heart beats, etc. are performed on ultrasound image data and cannot be performed in human mind or with a pen and paper.
In response, the examiner notes that the steps being performed can be done on a general-purpose computer and are not anything that is more than the abstract idea. The acts of displaying and selection can certainly be done by a human using only pen and paper even. Therefore, they fail to add significantly to the abstract idea.
Further, the applicant has argued that the claims incorporate and link the abstract idea to a specific medical imaging device (namely an ultrasound probe) and therefore integrate the abstract concept into a practical application involving ultrasound signal processing and image generation.
In response, the examiner notes that merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer is NOT integrating the abstract idea to a practical application (see MPEP 2106.05 (f)), similarly, adding insignificant extra-solution activities to the judicial exception as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(g) and generally linking the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use as discussed in MPEP 2106.05(h) fails to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application.
Limitations the courts have found indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the exception into a practical application include:
• An improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field, as discussed in MPEP §§ 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a);
• Applying or using a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(d)(2);
• Implementing a judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(b);
• Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(c); and
• Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(e).
Rejection of claims under U.S.C. 103
In view of added amendments to the claims and applicant’s arguments, the rejection of the claims in view of prior art has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
No claim is allowed.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARJAN - SABOKTAKIN whose telephone number is (303)297-4278. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 am-5pm CT.
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, Michael Carey can be reached at (571) 270-7235. 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.
/MARJAN SABOKTAKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/MICHAEL J CAREY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
Prosecution Insights