DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on March 4, 2026 and April 15, 2026 concerning application No. 17/822,358 filed on August 25, 2022.
Claims 1-12, 15-18, and 20 are currently pending.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 4, 2026 and April 15, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 regarding the newly filed claim amendments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 12 and 20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the area ration, or the change in the angle" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claims from which claim 12 depend do not previously recite an area ratio or a change in an angle.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image…that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame, to form a third frame group of ultrasound images”, in lines 11-14, which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner whether the removed ultrasound image forms the third frame group or if the remaining ultrasound images from the second frame group that were not removed form the third frame group. For the purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that the remaining ultrasound images that were not removed are considered the third frame group.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “extract a urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the third frame group…wherein only the ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group”, which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examiner how only the ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed for the extraction of the urinary bladder when the claim previously recites extracting a urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the third frame group. For the purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that only images from the third frame group are being analyzed during the urinary bladder extraction.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland (US 20210315541) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20170219705, hereinafter Kobayashi) and Urabe et al. (US 20170164924, hereinafter Urabe).
Regarding claim 1, Poland teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Abstract “ultrasound scanning device”) comprising:
a monitor (display 112 in fig. 1A and display 212 in fig. 2);
an input device configured to accept an input operation of a user ([0040] “a user of the handheld medical scanning device 102 may input instructions to control the operation of the handheld medical scanning device 102 via one or more buttons and/or via the display 112”);
an image memory configured to store a first frame group of ultrasound images ([0069] discloses memory 208 which stores data including imaging data files);
a processor (the electronic circuitry of the scanning device 102/202 in figs. 1-2) configured to
thin out ultrasound images of some frames from the ultrasound images of the first frame group to form a second frame group of ultrasound images ([0047] “the handheld medical scanning device 102 may filter the received imaging data to segregate relevant imaging data from irrelevant imaging data”, the filtering is considered the thinning out process. The first frame group is considered the received imaging data and the second frame group is considered the filtered imaging data), the second frame group being constituted by a smaller number of frames of ultrasound images ([0047] by removing imaging data the filtered imaging data group is smaller than the initial received imaging data group),
extract a urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses performing edge detection on a bladder cavity in each imaging plane 450 and 475, the imaging planes 450 and 475 are considered the relevant planes and are therefore part of the second frame group. By performing edge detection of the bladder, a urinary bladder region is being extracted from each of the image planes),
calculate a feature quantity related to the urinary bladder region extracted for each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses the area of the bladder cavity is determined for each view),
extract, based on the feature quantity, an ultrasound image of at least one candidate frame that serves as a candidate subjected to measurement from the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses imaging planes 450 and 475 are identified as image planes (candidate planes) subjected to measurement),
display the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame on the monitor ([0074] “ultrasound images of the patient’s bladder…may be outputted to a display of the handheld medical scanning device”),
select, in accordance with the input operation performed by the user via the input device ([0042]-[0043] discloses the user selects an imaging preset which includes the imaging target, Therefore only images that include the imaging target can be selected for measurement, meaning the selection of a measurement frame is in accordance with the input operation), an ultrasound image of a measurement frame that serves as a target subjected to measurement, from the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame displayed on the monitor ([0074] discloses that imaging plane 450 is identified (selected) to serve as an imaging plane in which measurement is performed since the plane includes the imaging target (bladder)), and
analyze the ultrasound image of the measurement frame which is selected to measure a bladder volume ([0074] discloses the imaging plane 450 is analyzed to calculate the bladder volume),
wherein only the ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the second frame group ([0074] discloses only relevant imaging planes 450 and 475 are analyzed and have edge detection on the bladder cavity performed. Therefore only ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region).
Poland does not specifically teach the thinning out of the ultrasound images occurs at predetermined intervals; wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus or a time taken for scanning of a urinary bladder.
However,
Kobayashi in a similar field of endeavor teaches thinning out ultrasound images at predetermined intervals ([0073] “a method in which image data, which constitute volume data vd0, are thinned out at regular intervals such that the number of data becomes 1/x”); wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0073] and [0126] disclose the amount of data to be reduced is based on the memory volume and speed of loading the data which corresponds to the speed in which the apparatus can process the data. The determining of the regular interval of 1/X data to be thinned is based on the amount and speed in which the data is loaded) or a time taken for scanning of a target region ([0073] discloses the thinned out data is based on the imaging time, for example the thinned out data is based on the data at an elapsed time from the start of the imaging or at specific time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland for the thinning out at predetermined intervals of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Poland in view of Kobayashi does not specifically teach the feature quantity is the largest diameter of the urinary bladder and the measured volume is a urine volume.
However,
Urabe in a similar field of endeavor teaches calculating a largest diameter of the urinary bladder region for each ultrasound image and extracting an ultrasound image based on the largest diameter ([0200] discloses calculating the diameter for the outline of the bladder in each frame, selecting the maximum diameter information and calculating the bladder volume from the selected frame). Urabe further teaches the measured volume is a urine volume ([0142] discloses measuring the volume of the urinary bladder. [0150] discloses the bladder is filled with liquid (urine). Therefore by measuring the volume of the bladder the system is measuring the urine volume).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the feature quantity of Poland in view of Kobayashi to be a largest diameter of the urinary bladder region in order to improve the accuracy of measuring the urine volume, as recognized by Urabe ([0200]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention apply the known technique of measuring urine volume of Urabe to the apparatus of Poland in view of Kobayashi in order to allow for the predictable results of determining whether and abnormality is present within the patient.
Regarding claim 2, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Poland further teaches remove ultrasound images of rest of the frames from the ultrasound images of the first frame group to form the second frame group of ultrasound images ([0074] discloses only relevant image planes are being analyzed and the rest of the imaging planes (irrelevant planes) are being discarded (removed)).
Kobayashi further teaches the processor is further configured to extract an ultrasound image at predetermined intervals in time series from the ultrasound images of the first frame group ([0073] “a method in which image data, which constitute volume data vd0, are thinned out at regular intervals such that the number of data becomes 1/x” and “the predetermined data may be thinned-out data…data at a predetermined imaging time”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe for the thinning out at predetermined intervals in time series of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Regarding claim 3, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe teaches the apparatus of claim 2, as set forth above. Kobayashi further teaches the predetermined intervals are intervals of a predetermined number of frames or predetermined time intervals ([0074] discloses the image data is bundled (extracted at intervals of six frames as can be seen in fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe for the thinning out at predetermined intervals of a predetermined number of frames of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Claims 4-7, 12, and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe as applied to claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Braun et al. (DE102015208422B4, hereinafter Braun).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe teach the apparatus of claims 2 and 3, as set forth above. Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe does not specifically teach wherein the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to the extracted ultrasound image of one frame and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame.
However,
Braun in a similar field of endeavor teaches wherein the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to the extracted ultrasound image of one frame and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame ([0059] “image processing algorithm may detect a degree of similarity or deviation between the medical examination slice images 103. The user may directly control or set a criterion serving as a threshold for deleting the slice images 103, for example, if a deviation is less than a certain value, the slice image 103 may be deleted” and [0017] “the analysis algorithm carries out an entropy analysis between adjacent sectional images in the image sequence. This achieves the technical advantage, for example, that similar images with the same information content can be easily eliminated”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim to include estimating whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to the extracted ultrasound image of one frame and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame in order to eliminate similar images, thereby simplifying the layout of images to be analyzed, as recognized by Braun ([0015]-[0017]).
Regarding Claim 15, Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe teach the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Poland in view of Kobayashi and Urabe does not specifically teach the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and form the second frame group of ultrasound images using ultrasound images of frames that are left after removal of an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive to an ultrasound image of each frame of the ultrasound images of the first frame group and is estimated to be similar to the ultrasound image of the frame.
However,
Braun in a similar field of endeavor teaches the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and form the second frame group of ultrasound images using ultrasound images of frames that are left after removal of an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive to an ultrasound image of each frame of the ultrasound images of the first frame group and is estimated to be similar to the ultrasound image of the frame ([0059] “image processing algorithm may detect a degree of similarity or deviation between the medical examination slice images 103. The user may directly control or set a criterion serving as a threshold for deleting the slice images 103, for example, if a deviation is less than a certain value, the slice image 103 may be deleted” and [0017] “the analysis algorithm carries out an entropy analysis between adjacent sectional images in the image sequence. This achieves the technical advantage, for example, that similar images with the same information content can be easily eliminated”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim to include estimating whether or not ultrasound images of two frames are similar to each other, and form the second frame group of ultrasound images using ultrasound images of frames that are left after removal of an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive to an ultrasound image of each frame of the ultrasound images of the first frame group and is estimated to be similar to the ultrasound image of the frame in order to eliminate similar images, thereby simplifying the layout of images to be analyzed, as recognized by Braun ([0015]-[0017]).
Regarding Claims 6, 7, and 16, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun teach the apparatus of claims 4, 5, and 15, as set forth above. Braun further teaches the processor is further configured to analyze the ultrasound images of the two frames to calculate a similarity level between the ultrasound images of the two frames, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the similarity level is greater than or equal to a predetermined similarity level threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the similarity level is less than the predetermined similarity level threshold ([0059] “image processing algorithm may detect a degree of similarity or deviation between the medical examination slice images 103. The user may directly control or set a criterion serving as a threshold for deleting the slice images 103, for example, if a deviation is less than a certain value, the slice image 103 may be deleted” and [0017] “the analysis algorithm carries out an entropy analysis between adjacent sectional images in the image sequence. This achieves the technical advantage, for example, that similar images with the same information content can be easily eliminated”).
Regarding Claim 12, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun teach the apparatus of claim 5, as set forth above. Braun further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to update the predetermined intervals, based on the similarity level, the area ratio, or the change in the angle ([0011]-[0012], [0017] and [0044] disclose when the reduction is achieved by deleting redundant (similar) slice images a reduction at the beginning, middle, or end of the sequence wouldn’t be necessary. Therefore the predetermined interval is updated to zero based on the similarity level of the images)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the processor of Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun to have the processor be further configured to update the predetermined intervals, based on the similarity level, the area ratio, or the change in the angle in order to reduce the number of images the apparatus has to process, thereby making the apparatus more efficient.
Claims 8-9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe, and Braun as applied to claims 4-5 and 15 above, and further in view of Park (US 20160171158).
Regarding Claims 8, 9, and 17, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun teach the apparatus of claims 4, 5, and 15, as set forth above. Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun does not specifically teach the processor is further configured to analyze the ultrasound images of the two frames to calculate an area ratio between regions in the respective ultrasound images of the two frames, estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the area ratio is within a predetermined area ratio range, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the area ratio is out of the predetermined area ratio range.
However,
Park in a similar field of determining similarity between images teaches analyze the ultrasound images of the two frames to calculate an area ratio between regions in the respective ultrasound images of the two frames, estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the area ratio is within a predetermined area ratio range, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the area ratio is out of the predetermined area ratio range ([0059] “the comparison selector 270 calculates the similarity measure between each of the ROIs, and selects the reference images that include the same ROI that shows the similarity measure greater than a threshold”. The calculated similarity value is considered the area ratio and the threshold is considered the range, where when the similarity is above the threshold the ratio is within the range and the images are considered similar and when the similarity is below the threshold the ratio is out of the range and the images are considered dissimilar. [0093] further discloses comparing the shapes (areas) of the ROIs is compared).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the similarity determination using an area ratio of Park for the similarity determination of Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of determining whether the imaging frames are similar or not.
Claims 10-11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland in view of Kobayashi, Kim, and Braun as applied to claims 4-5 and 15 above, and further in view of Noguchi (US 20200100770).
Regarding Claims 10, 11, and 18, Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun teach the apparatus of claims 4, 5, and 15. Poland further teaches an ultrasound probe is configured to transmit an ultrasonic beam to a subject and receive an ultrasonic beam from the subject ([0039] discloses the micro-beamformer of the ultrasound assembly sequences both transmit and receive signals).
Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun does not specifically teach an angle sensor device attached to the ultrasound probe and configured to detect an angle of the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate, based on the angle of the ultrasound probe detected by the angle sensor device, a change in the angle of the ultrasound probe during capturing of the ultrasound images of the two frames and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the change in the angle is smaller than a predetermined change-in-angle threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the change in the angle is greater than or equal to the predetermined change-in- angle threshold.
However,
Noguchi in a similar field of endeavor teaches an angle sensor device attached to the ultrasound probe and configured to detect an angle of the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate, based on the angle of the ultrasound probe detected by the angle sensor device, a change in the angle of the ultrasound probe during capturing of the ultrasound images of the two frames, ([0009] “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that has an ultrasound probe and is used to compression-test an observation target in a subject by pressing the ultrasound probe against a body surface of the subject, the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: an image acquisition unit that performs transmission of an ultrasound beam from the ultrasound probe toward the subject to acquire ultrasound images sequentially and consecutively;… a movement vector calculation unit that calculates a movement vector indicating an image movement change between two ultrasound images that are consecutive for each predetermined number of frames among the ultrasound images sequentially acquired by the image acquisition unit”, the movement vector calculation unit is considered the angle sensor device)
estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the change in the angle is smaller than a predetermined change-in-angle threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the change in the angle is greater than or equal to the predetermined change-in- angle threshold ([0016] “the tomographic plane determination unit may perform image analysis with respect to the deformed image and the reference image to calculate a similarity between the deformed image and the reference image, and may determine the tomographic plane of the subject based on the calculated similarity.” [0012] ”the movement vector calculation unit may calculate a movement change of a high-luminance pixel of which a luminance is equal to or more than a predetermined threshold value among all the pixels in the ultrasound image as the movement vector.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the apparatus of Poland in view of Kobayashi, Urabe and Braun to have an angle sensor device attached to the ultrasound probe and configured to detect an angle of the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is further configured to calculate, based on the angle of the ultrasound probe detected by the angle sensor device, a change in the angle of the ultrasound probe during capturing of the ultrasound images of the two frames, estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are similar to each other in a case where the change in the angle is smaller than a predetermined change-in-angle threshold, and estimate that the ultrasound images of the two frames are dissimilar from each other in a case where the change in the angle is greater than or equal to the predetermined change-in-angle threshold in order to reduce the total number of images the apparatus processes, thereby making the apparatus more efficient.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Poland (US 20210315541) in view of Kobayashi et al. (US 20170219705, hereinafter Kobayashi), Kim et al. (US 20160192904, as cited in applicant’s 11/23/2022 IDS, hereinafter Kim) and Braun et al. (DE102015208422B4, hereinafter Braun).
Regarding claim 20, Poland teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Abstract “ultrasound scanning device”) comprising:
a monitor (display 112 in fig. 1A and display 212 in fig. 2);
an input device configured to accept an input operation of a user ([0040] “a user of the handheld medical scanning device 102 may input instructions to control the operation of the handheld medical scanning device 102 via one or more buttons and/or via the display 112”);
an image memory configured to store a first frame group of ultrasound images ([0069] discloses memory 208 which stores data including imaging data files);
a processor (the electronic circuitry of the scanning device 102/202 in figs. 1-2) configured to
thin out ultrasound images of some frames from the ultrasound images of the first frame group to form a second frame group of ultrasound images ([0047] “the handheld medical scanning device 102 may filter the received imaging data to segregate relevant imaging data from irrelevant imaging data”, the filtering is considered the thinning out process. The first frame group is considered the received imaging data and the second frame group is considered the filtered imaging data), the second frame group being constituted by a smaller number of frames of ultrasound images ([0047] by removing imaging data the filtered imaging data group is smaller than the initial received imaging data group),
extract a urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of a frame group ([0074] discloses performing edge detection on a bladder cavity in each imaging plane 450 and 475, the imaging planes 450 and 475 are considered the relevant planes and are therefore part of the second frame group. By performing edge detection of the bladder, a urinary bladder region is being extracted from each of the image planes),
calculate a feature quantity related to the urinary bladder region extracted for each of the ultrasound images of the frame group ([0074] discloses the area of the bladder cavity is determined for each view),
extract, based on the feature quantity, an ultrasound image of at least one candidate frame that serves as a candidate subjected to measurement from the ultrasound images of the frame group ([0074] discloses imaging planes 450 and 475 are identified as image planes (candidate planes) subjected to measurement),
display the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame on the monitor ([0074] “ultrasound images of the patient’s bladder…may be outputted to a display of the handheld medical scanning device”),
select, in accordance with the input operation performed by the user via the input device ([0042]-[0043] discloses the user selects an imaging preset which includes the imaging target, Therefore only images that include the imaging target can be selected for measurement, meaning the selection of a measurement frame is in accordance with the input operation), an ultrasound image of a measurement frame that serves as a target subjected to measurement, from the ultrasound image of the at least one candidate frame displayed on the monitor ([0074] discloses that imaging plane 450 is identified (selected) to serve as an imaging plane in which measurement is performed since the plane includes the imaging target (bladder)), and
analyze the ultrasound image of the measurement frame which is selected to measure a bladder volume ([0074] discloses the imaging plane 450 is analyzed to calculate the bladder volume),
wherein only the ultrasound images of the frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region from each of the ultrasound images of the frame group ([0074] discloses only relevant imaging planes 450 and 475 are analyzed and have edge detection on the bladder cavity performed. Therefore only ultrasound images of the second frame group are analyzed during the extraction of the urinary bladder region).
Poland does not specifically teach the thinning out of the ultrasound images occurs at predetermined intervals; wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus or a time taken for scanning of a urinary bladder.
However,
Kobayashi in a similar field of endeavor teaches thinning out ultrasound images at predetermined intervals ([0073] “a method in which image data, which constitute volume data vd0, are thinned out at regular intervals such that the number of data becomes 1/x”); wherein the processor is further configured to vary the predetermined intervals, based on a processing speed of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0073] and [0126] disclose the amount of data to be reduced is based on the memory volume and speed of loading the data which corresponds to the speed in which the apparatus can process the data. The determining of the regular interval of 1/X data to be thinned is based on the amount and speed in which the data is loaded) or a time taken for scanning of a target region ([0073] discloses the thinned out data is based on the imaging time, for example the thinned out data is based on the data at an elapsed time from the start of the imaging or at specific time intervals).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to substitute the thinning out process of Poland for the thinning out at predetermined intervals of Kobayashi because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results of reducing the number of imaging frames the system needs to process, thereby increasing the efficiency of the system.
Poland in view of Kobayashi does not specifically teach the measured volume is a urine volume.
However,
Kim in a similar field of endeavor teaches measuring and analyzing ultrasound images of the urinary bladder to determine urine volume ([0008] “Various types of ultrasonic scanning equipment may be used to measure the amount of urine in the urinary bladder,”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the measured volume of Poland in view of Kobayashi to be a urine volume in order to provide additional information that can be used for determining if an abnormality is present with the patient, as recognized by Kim ([0007]).
Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim does not specifically teach the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames that are consecutive each other in time series among the second frame group of ultrasound images, are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to an extracted ultrasound image of one frame from the ultrasound images of the second frame group and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame, to form a third frame group of ultrasound images.
However,
Braun in a similar field of endeavor teaches the processor is further configured to estimate whether or not ultrasound images of two frames that are consecutive each other in time series among a frame group of ultrasound images, are similar to each other ([0059] “an image processing algorithm may detect a degree of similarity or deviation between the medical examination slices”. [0008] discloses the analyzed images are sequential images (consecutive in time series)), and remove, from the ultrasound images of the frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to an extracted ultrasound image of one frame from the ultrasound images of the second frame group and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame, to form a different frame group of ultrasound images ([0059] “image processing algorithm may detect a degree of similarity or deviation between the medical examination slice images 103. The user may directly control or set a criterion serving as a threshold for deleting the slice images 103, for example, if a deviation is less than a certain value, the slice image 103 may be deleted” and [0017] “the analysis algorithm carries out an entropy analysis between adjacent sectional images in the image sequence. This achieves the technical advantage, for example, that similar images with the same information content can be easily eliminated”. Also see [0008] and [0017]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the processor of Poland in view of Kobayashi and Kim to include estimating whether or not ultrasound images of two frames that are consecutive each other in time series among the second frame group of ultrasound images, are similar to each other, and remove, from the ultrasound images of the second frame group, an ultrasound image of a frame that is consecutive in time series to an extracted ultrasound image of one frame from the ultrasound images of the second frame group and that is estimated to be similar to the extracted ultrasound image of the one frame, to form a third frame group of ultrasound images in order to eliminate similar images, thereby simplifying the layout of images to be analyzed, as recognized by Braun ([0015]-[0017]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights