DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on February 27, 2026 concerning application No. 18/011,020 filed on December 16, 2022.
Claims 10-22 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/27/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112b rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claim 10 previously set forth.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 10 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. Examiner notes that claim 10 has been amended to now include a previously optional limitation, therefore new reference, Lee is being applied to teach the now required limitation. See the rejection of claim 10 below for how Lee is being applied to teach the limitation and why it would have been obvious to combine Joy and Lee.
In response to applicant’s arguments regarding dependent claims 11-22. As discussed above claim 10 is rejected by Joy in view of Lee and is not considered allowable, therefore the rejections of the dependent claims previously set forth stand.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Joy (US 20200005088, as cited in applicant’s 12/26/2022 IDS) in view of Lee et al. (US 20050054381, hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 10, Joy teaches a medical imaging system (Abstract and imaging system 100 in fig. 1A) comprising:
a user interface ([0037] discloses “a user interface of the image viewer 140”) comprising a plurality of controls configured to be manipulated by a user for changing an operation of the medical imaging system ([0026] discloses the user interface includes a collection of icons or commands. [0064] discloses the user action commands include setting adjustment and image manipulation which are considered operations of the medical imaging system);
a memory configured to store usage data resulting from the manipulation of the plurality of controls ([0050] discloses “the user activity is cached into data logs”, the cache storing the user data is considered the memory); and
a processor (the electronic circuitry of system 100 in fig. 1A) in communication with the user interface and the memory (fig. 1A shows the system includes the image viewer which is considered the user interface and includes the cache [0050]. Therefore the processor is in communication with the user interface and the memory), the processor configured to:
receive the usage data ([0050], “the user activity (e.g., commands, sequences, inputs, image arrangement, etc.) are tracked or recorded at block 510…in this example the user activity and data logs are cached and transferred to a server”. Also see 702 in fig. 7 and [0064]);
receive an indication of a first selected control of the plurality of controls ([0051], “at block 516, user and data are recorded and/or forwarded to the image processing server 130 and/or the data acquisition workstation 120”. Also step 708 in fig. 7 and [0067] disclose a request is received from the user, the request is seen as a first selected control), wherein the first selected control is associated with a first function ([0067] discloses the request includes sending information of a new incoming medical case or parameters provided by the user to be input);
determine, based at least in part on the usage data and the first function, a next predicted function (steps 710-712 in fig. 7 and [0068]-[0069] disclose using a training model to compare the request to a subset of the training model and “determines a subset of commands from the trained model based on the request”. The determined subset of commands is considered the next predicted function. The request is considered the first function and the subsets stored in the training model are considered the usage data. Also see [0052] where predictions for the next user commands are determined using the similarity algorithm); and
following manipulation of the first selected control, adapt the user interface to include the next predicted function ([0070] discloses step 714, “the user interface adjuster adjusts and/or modifies a user interface of the image viewer 140…additionally or alternatively, an icon, symbol or button representing a learned command or set of commands is shown on the image viewer 140”).
Joy does not specifically teach the adapting of the user interface includes changing the function of an existing one of the plurality of controls of the user interface to the next predicted function.
However,
Lee in a similar field of adjusting user interfaces discloses following manipulation of a first control, adapting a user interface by changing the function of an existing one of the plurality of controls of the user interface to the next predicted function ([0094]-[0095] disclose a proactive user interface that suggests controls to a user by “altering the appearance of at least a portion of the display, for example by changing a menu or a portion thereof; providing different menus for display; and/or altering touch screen functionality”. Where the interface detects a pattern of interaction of the user with the user interface (manipulation of a first control) and in response to detecting the pattern, alters at least one function of the user interface according to the detected pattern (changing the function of an existing control), thereby anticipating the next request of the user (next predicted function)). Also see the abstract, [0023], [0029], and [0109] for further examples of the altering).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Joy to have the adapting of the user interface include changing the function of an existing one of the plurality of controls of the user interface to the next predicted function in order to reduce the number of operations the user needs to perform to activate the desired function, thereby increasing efficiency, as recognized by Lee ([0331]).
Regarding claim 11, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Lee further teaches the processor is configured, following the manipulation of the first selected control, to change the function of the first selected control to the next predicted function ([0094] and [0109] disclose in response to selecting a choice from a menu the system sends a command to change the menu to a new menu that anticipates the next request of the user, thereby changing the function of the first selected control (first menu) to the next predicted function (new menu)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Joy in view of Lee to have the processor be configured, following the manipulation of the first selected control, to change the function of the first selected control to the next predicted function in order to reduce the number of operations the user needs to perform to activate the desired function, thereby increasing efficiency, as recognized by Lee ([0331]).
Regarding claim 13, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Joy further teaches the processor implements an artificial intelligence model to analyze the usage data and determine one or more sequences of control selections ([0051]-[0052] disclose a machine learning engine 330 is used to develop the predictions. [0069] also discloses using a trained model to determine the subset of commands. The machine learning engine is considered the artificial intelligence model).
Regarding claim 15, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 13, as set forth above. Joy further teaches the artificial intelligence model further outputs a confidence level associated with the next predicted function, and wherein the processor is configured to adapt the user interface only when the confidence level is equal to or above a threshold value ([0052]-[0054] discloses the machine learning engine executes a similarity algorithm which calculates a similarity score (confidence level) associated with the prediction. [0068]-[0069] additionally disclose if the similarity is not similar, the process returns back to the start of the method and if the request is similar moving forward with the adapting of the user interface. The similarity score level used to determine whether something is similar or not is considered the threshold value).
Regarding claim 17, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Joy further teaches the usage data further comprises a make and a model of an ultrasound probe, a user identifier ([0076] discloses the machine learning model associates the user interface model with user identifications, which are considered usage data), a geographical location of the ultrasound imaging system, or a combination thereof.
Regarding claim 22, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Joy further teaches the processor is configured, following manipulation of the first selected control, to adapt the user interface by increasing a visibility of a control of the plurality of controls configured to perform the next predicted function relative to other controls of the plurality of controls (step 714 in fig. 7 and [0070] discloses “the user interface adjuster adjusts and/or modifies a user interface of the image viewer 140…additionally or alternatively, an icon, symbol or button representing a learned command or set of commands is shown on the image viewer 140”. By adjusting the user interface to show a learned command over one of the other commands the visibility of the command (control) is increased relative to the other controls. [0055] further discloses configuring the user interface based on the prediction).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy in view of Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Flexman et al. (WO 2018002109A1, hereinafter Flexman).
Regarding claim 12, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Joy further teaches the user interface comprises a control panel with hard controls ([0090] discloses the input device includes a keyboard or button, which is considered a control panel, specifically a control panel with hard controls).
Joy in view of Lee does not specifically teach the processor is configured to change the function of one of a plurality of hard controls provided on the control panel to the next predicted function or to increase the visibility of the hard control that is associated with the next predicted function relative to other hard controls on the control panel.
However,
Flexman in a similar field of endeavor teaches a processor (the electronic circuitry of the system 100 in fig. 1) configured to change the function of one of a plurality of hard controls provided on the control panel to the next predicted function or to increase the visibility of the hard control that is associated with the next predicted function relative to other hard controls on the control panel (pg. 26, lines 15-23 discloses rendering information related to the determined guidance information using the lighting of hard keys which reads on, increase the visibility of the hard control that is associated with the next predicted function relative to other hard controls on the control panel. The guidance information would instruct the user on which key to press next by lighting up the next hard key).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor disclosed by Joy in view of Lee to have the processor be configured to change the function of one of a plurality of hard controls provided on the control panel to the next predicted function or to increase the visibility of the hard control that is associated with the next predicted function relative to other hard controls on the control panel to provide an alternate way of informing the user which control is to be used next in a case where the user is viewing something other than the controls on the display, thereby making the system more versatile.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy in view of Lee as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Srinivasan et al. (US 20190261956, hereinafter Srinivasan).
Regarding claim 14, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 13, as set forth above. Joy in view of Lee does not specifically teach the artificial intelligence model includes a long short term memory model.
However,
Srinivasan in a similar field of endeavor teaches an artificial intelligence model includes a long short term memory model ([0059] discloses the model used for the user interface model is a long short term memory network. As shown in fig. 17 and [0167]-[0171] the user interface model is used to configured the user interface).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the artificial intelligence model of Joy in view of Lee for the known long short term memory model of Srinivasan because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another known element to obtain the predictable results of determining one or more sequences of the control selections.
Claim(s) 16 and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Joy in view of Lee as applied to claims 10 and 22 above, and further in view of Gerard et al. (US 20180322627, hereinafter Gerard).
Regarding claim 16, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 22, as set forth above. Joy in view of Lee does not specifically teach increasing the visibility of the control configured to perform the next predicted function relative to other controls of the plurality of controls comprises changing a color of the control configured to perform the next predicted function.
However,
Gerard in a similar field of endeavor teaches increasing the visibility of the control configured to perform the next function relative to other controls of the plurality of controls comprises changing a color of the control configured to perform the next function ([0057] discloses “the controller circuit 102 may adjust a color of the first user interface component 510 from gray to blue, while the remaining user interface components 504 remain having a color of gray”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor disclosed by Joy in view of Lee to have increasing the visibility of the control configured to perform the next predicted function relative to other controls of the plurality of controls comprises changing a color of the control configured to perform the next predicted function in order to increase the versatility of the system by providing other ways in which the system can draw attention to the next control they want the user to initiate.
Regarding claim 18, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Joy further teaches an ultrasound probe ([0028] discloses the imaging modality 110 includes a ultrasound scanner) configured to acquire ultrasound signals for generating an ultrasound image ([0028] discloses the imaging modality is capable of capturing an image of the patient. By having the imaging modality be an ultrasound scanner the scanner would acquire ultrasound signals for generating the image which would be an ultrasound image).
Joy in view of Lee does not specifically teach the processor is further configured to determine an anatomical feature included in the ultrasound image and the next predicted function is based, at least in part, on the anatomical feature.
However,
Gerard in a similar field of endeavor teaches a processor (the electronic circuitry of system 100 in fig. 1) configured to determine an anatomical feature included in the ultrasound image ([0053] “at 312, the controller circuit 102 may determine whether the candidate FOV of the medical image 400 is in the protocol…the candidate FOV, such as the four chamber left ventricle function”. The candidate FOV is considered the anatomical feature) and the next predicted function is based, at least in part, on the anatomical feature ([0055] “if the candidate FOC is a part of the protocol, then at 314, the controller circuit 102 is configured to update a user interface component 504 of a GUI 500”. [0057] “the controller circuit 102 may adjust a color corresponding to the select characteristic, of the first user interface component 510 to indicate that the candidate FOV corresponds to one of the plurality of protocol defined FOVs of the protocol…adjust a color for the first user interface component 510 from gray to blue, while the remaining user interface components 504 remain having a color of gray”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor disclosed by Joy in view of Lee to have the known technique of the processor being further configured to determine an anatomical feature included in the ultrasound image and the next predicted function be based, at least in part, on the anatomical feature of Gerard to allow for the predictable results of ensuring the next predicted control can actually be performed on the data within the image, before the control is suggested to the user, thereby making the system more accurate and efficient.
Regarding claim 19, Joy in view of Lee and Gerard teaches the system of claim 18, as set forth above. Gerard further teaches the processor implements a convolutional neural network to analyze the ultrasound image and determine the anatomical feature included in the ultrasound image ([0025]-[0026] disclose using a machine learning algorithm which consists of a neural network to identify the FOV of the anatomical structure of interest).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor disclosed by Joy in view of Lee and Gerard to have the processor implement a convolutional neural network to analyze the ultrasound image and determine the anatomical feature included in the ultrasound image in order to reduce the burden of the user to determine the anatomical structure, thereby making the system more efficient and to allow for an untrained user to use the system.
Regarding claim 20, Joy in view of Lee and Gerard teaches the system of claim 18, as set forth above. Joy further teaches a display for displaying the ultrasound image ([0027] discloses the system includes one or more image viewers 140 and [0028]-[0029] disclose the image obtained from the imaging modality is displayed on one of the image viewers 140).
Claim(s) 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Joy in view of Lee as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Dunbar et al. (US 20100090877, hereinafter Dunbar).
Regarding claim 21, Joy in view of Lee teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Joy further teaches the processor is configured, following manipulation of the first selected control, change the function of a control to the next predicted function (after receiving the manipulation of the first control at step 708 in fig. 7, step 714 in fig. 7 and [0070] discloses “the user interface adjuster adjusts and/or modifies a user interface of the image viewer 140…additionally or alternatively, an icon, symbol or button representing a learned command or set of commands is shown on the image viewer 140”. [0055] further discloses configuring the user interface based on the prediction).
Joy in view of Lee does not specifically teach the processor is configured, to change the function of a control other than the first selected control to the next function.
However,
Dunbar in a similar field of endeavor teaches a processor configured, to change the function of a control other than the first control to the next function ([0018] “The keys can be programmable so that from time to time the function of a key could change, or the function of the key can be made to change in context to a stage of a program that is currently being controlled”. By being able to change the function of any of the keys in context to a stage of a program that is currently being controlled, the processor controlling the keys is configured to change the function of a control other than first control to the next function).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the processor be configured to change the function of a control other than the first control to the next function of Dunbar to the processor of Joy in view of Lee to allow for the predictable results of more easily implementing the diagnostic procedure and increasing efficiency by reducing the need for the user to search for the next function.
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 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