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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 6-7, 9-10, 14-17, 21-22, and 24-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2016/0300120) in view of Adams et al. (US 2020/0397399), Silverstein et al. (US 2012/0143029), Golan et al. (US 2022/0406460), and Saget et al. (US 2020/0219258).
With respect to claims 1, 9, and 16, Haas et al. discloses an ultrasound imaging system comprising a console (500; [0066]) configured to communicate with the ultrasound probe (509; [0066]), the console including one or more processors and a non-transitory computer-readable medium (501; 502; 503; [0066]) having stored thereon logic, when executed by the one or more processors, causes operations including: capturing a first ultrasound image of a target insertion area of a patient at a first time (103; 201; [0041]), capturing a second ultrasound image of the target insertion area at a second time (105; 203; [0042]), generating a graphic user interface indicating results of a comparison of the first ultrasound image and the second ultrasound image ([0031]; [0034]; [0044]; [0053]), and causing a rendering of the graphic user interface (505; [0067]). Haas et al. does not teach an ultrasound probe including an array of ultrasonic transducers. However, Silverstein et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor an ultrasound imaging system comprising an ultrasound probe including an array of ultrasonic transducers is well known to acquire ultrasound images of a target insertion area of a patient (40; [0108]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with the ultrasound probe as taught by Silverstein et al. to provide the ultrasound images. Haas et al. does not teach a pre-scan ultrasound image and a live scan ultrasound image. However, Adams et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor comparing real-time images with pre-stored reference data ([0013]; [0060-0063]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with pre-scan and live images as it is well known in to art to compare reference images with real-time images as taught by Adams et al. Haas et al. does not teach automatically identifying a target vessel using a machine learning model. However, Golan et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor using machine learning to identify and comparing vessels to determine if a suspected condition is present ([0125]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with the identifying vessels as taught by Golan et al. to determine if a condition is present ([0125]). Haas et al. does not teach a visual alignment marker to provide a visual indication as to an alignment of the first and second images. However, Haas et al. discloses a deformation field for aligning images (107; Fig. 1). Saget et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor wherein deformation fields comprise a distorted grid indicator, such as lines curving and displaying the grid ([0042]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with visual alignment indicators (displaying the grid) as taught by Saget et al. to allow the user to display the deformation field which aligns the images.
With respect to claims 2, 10, and 17, the Examiner considers the timing of the imaging and sterilization procedure to be intended use. The system of Haas et al. in view of Silverstein et al. is capable of processing the images acquired at different times.
With respect to claims 6, 14, and 21, Haas et al. does not teach displaying a super-imposed image of a medical device on the ultrasound image. However, Silverstein teaches in the same field of endeavor a needle superimposed on the ultrasound image to enable a clinician to accurately guide the needle ([0156]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with superimposing the medical device on the ultrasound image in order to enable a clinician to accurately guide the device ([0156]).
With respect to claims 7, 15, and 22, Haas et al. discloses a trained machine learning model ([0007-0008]; [0029-0047]).
With respect to claims 24-26, Adams et al. discloses real-time images and comparison ([0060-0062]).
Claim(s) 3-4, 11-12, and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2016/0300120) in view of Adams et al. (US 2020/0397399), Silverstein et al. (US 2012/0143029), Golan et al. (US 2022/0406460), and Saget et al. (US 2020/0219258). as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Yeluri et al. (US 2010/0080427).
Haas et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for a comparison view displayed in a horizontal or vertical arrangement. However, Yeluri et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor displaying a first image next to a second image for comparison ([0096]). The Examiner notes that a horizontal or vertical arrangement is interpreted to be a rearrangement of parts (MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C)) which is well within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with a comparison view as taught by Yeluri et al. as it is well known to display images next to each other for comparison ([0096]).
Claim(s) 5, 13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2016/0300120) in view of Adams et al. (US 2020/0397399), Silverstein et al. (US 2012/0143029), Golan et al. (US 2022/0406460), and Saget et al. (US 2020/0219258) as applied to claims 1, 9, and 16 above, and further in view of Kleyman et al. (US 2022/0241014).
Haas et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for the first image overlaid on the second image or vice versa. However, Kleyman et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor overlaying the first image onto the second image or vice versa, when identifying and matching one or more features in each of the images ([0058]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with overlaying the images as taught by Kleyman et al. in order to identify and match one or more features in the images ([0058]).
Claim(s) 8 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haas et al. (US 2016/0300120) in view of Adams et al. (US 2020/0397399), Silverstein et al. (US 2012/0143029), Golan et al. (US 2022/0406460), and Saget et al. (US 2020/0219258) as applied to claims 7 and 22 above, and further in view of Mansi et al. (US 2020/0090331).
Haas et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for a convolutional neural network. However, Mansi et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor machine learning comprising convolution neural networks are well known for anatomical feature analysis ([0060]; [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Haas et al. with a convolution neural network as taught by Mansi et al. as it is well known to use a CNN to perform anatomical feature analysis ([0060]; [0101]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-26 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.
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 PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797