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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed 02/04/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 06/03/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Loupas is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 3-4 and 13-14 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For claim 1, and similarly for claims 11 and 20, the limitation “increase at least one of a persistence or a number of averaged ultrasound image frames of the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal beyond a level used for diagnostic imaging” is unclear. It is unclear what is considered “beyond” a level of persistence or number of averaged images (i.e., what is the numerical range of persistence or number of averaged images that is considered “used for diagnostic imaging” vs the numerical range of persistence or number of averaged images that is considered “beyond”). For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner assumes the level is increased to a “high” level, whatever a “high” level is.
The term “beyond a level used for diagnostic imaging” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “beyond a level” and “level used for diagnostic imaging” 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.
Claims 2-10 are dependent of claim 1, and claims 12-19 are dependent of claim 11, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochizuki et al. (US 20190328317 A1, published October 31, 2019) in view of Loupas et al. (US 20210055398 A1, published February 25, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Mochizuki and Loupas, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 11 and 20, Mochizuki teaches a method for automatically determining a depth of a vascular feature on an ultrasound image feed, acquired from an ultrasound scanner, the method comprising:
displaying, on a screen (Fig. 1, display device 40) that is communicatively connected to the ultrasound scanner (ultrasound probe 20), the ultrasound image feed comprising ultrasound image frames of a region of interest comprising the vascular feature (Fig. 9; see para. 0063 "The physician moves the ultrasound probe 20 while monitoring the tomographic image displayed on the display device 40 for the scan region [ultrasound image feed of ROI], so that the tomographic image will turn the short axis image of the internal jugular vein [vascular feature] and also include the internal jugular vein at its central portion.");
activating a Doppler mode of the ultrasound scanner, in which the ultrasound scanner obtains a Doppler-mode ultrasound signal corresponding to the region of interest comprising the vascular feature (see para. 0047 "The processing circuitry 17 with the Doppler processing function 172 applies a moving target indicator (MTI) filter to the data strings corresponding to the same location so that signals (clutter signals) attributable to stationary tissue or slowly moving tissue are suppressed and signals attributable to a blood flow [of vascular feature] are extracted [Doppler mode signal].");
applying at least one image processing filter to the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal to the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal, thereby preserving the Doppler mode ultrasound signal for depth measurement of the vascular feature (see para. 0052- "More specifically, and for example, the processing circuitry 17 with the image processing function 175 [image process filtering] performs image processing (smoothing) for regenerating an image having an average brightness value using multiple image frames in the two-dimensional B-mode image data or the two-dimensional Doppler image data [preserved Doppler mode signal] generated by the image generating function 174, image processing (edge enhancement) of using a differential filter within images, and so on.");
generating from the preserved Doppler-mode signal of the vascular feature as returned to the ultrasound scanner (real time), the depth of the vascular feature (see para. 0081 "The processing circuitry 17 of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 analyzes the result of the ultrasound scanning for the part corresponding to the central portion of the scan region, so that it calculates the distance between the blood vessel within the central portion and the body surface. The processing circuitry 17 then causes the display device 40 to display the calculated distance in real time."); and
indicating depth of the vascular feature to a user of ultrasound scanner (Fig. 9; see para. 0077 "Also, a measurement line L1 is displayed as a line extending from the center of the Doppler image 11 [preserved Doppler mode signal] to the surface of the ultrasound probe 20 [depth of vascular feature], and a measurement value V1 is displayed right above the point at which the surface of the ultrasound probe 20 intersects the measurement line L1."; see para. 0081- "The processing circuitry 17 then causes the display device 40 to display the calculated distance [depth of vascular feature] in real time.").
Mochizuki teaches applying a filter to a Doppler signal, but does not explicitly teach increasing persistence to the Doppler signal.
Whereas, Loupas, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches applying at least one image processing filter to the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal to increase at least one of a persistence or a number of averaged ultrasound image frames of the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal beyond a level used for diagnostic imaging (the "preserved Doppler-mode signal") (Fig. 2, increasing persistence of doppler image data from Doppler processor 24 via Persistence controller 36 and Persistence processor 30; see para. 0022 – “The persistence processor 30 in FIG. 2 also receives persistence coefficients (PersistCoeff) from a persistence controller 36 in response to the user setting a persistence control on the control panel 28…a user may then decide to use a high persistence setting to increase the reduction of noise in the images without worrying about image blurring.” So the persistence level of the signal can increase to a level “beyond a level used for diagnostic imaging” (aka “high” persistence, see 112(b) rejection above)).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified applying a filter to a Doppler signal, as disclosed in Mochizuki, by increasing persistence to a Doppler signal, as disclosed in Loupas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to decrease noise in images, as taught in Loupas (see para. 0027).
Furthermore, regarding claims 2 and 12, Mochizuki further teaches wherein at least one image processing filter is a temporal filter see para. 0052 "More specifically, and for example, the processing circuitry 17 with the image processing function 175 [image process filtering] performs image processing (smoothing) for regenerating an image having an average brightness value using multiple image frames in the two-dimensional B-mode image data or the two-dimensional Doppler image data [preserved Doppler mode signal] generated by the image generating function 174, image processing (edge enhancement) of using a differential filter [temporal filtering] within images, and so on. ").
Furthermore, regarding claims 3 and 13, Loupas further teaches wherein the temporal filter is a flash removal filter which preserves the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal by increasing a number of ultrasound image frames of the region of interest from the ultrasound image feed (see para. 0022 – “The persistence processor 30 in FIG. 2 also receives persistence coefficients (PersistCoeff) from a persistence controller 36 in response to the user setting a persistence control on the control panel 28…a user may then decide to use a high persistence setting to increase the reduction of noise in the images without worrying about image blurring…Preferably, the persistence values for the processing of each pixel location vary both spatially and temporally.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 4 and 14, Loupas further teaches wherein the temporal filter is an adaptive persistence filter which is increased to preserve the Doppler-mode ultrasound signal by averaging a plurality of ultrasound image frames of the region of interest from the ultrasound image feed (Fig. 2, increasing persistence of doppler image data from Doppler processor 24 via Persistence controller 36 and Persistence processor 30; see para. 0022 – “The persistence processor 30 in FIG. 2 also receives persistence coefficients (PersistCoeff) from a persistence controller 36 in response to the user setting a persistence control on the control panel 28…a user may then decide to use a high persistence setting to increase the reduction of noise in the images without worrying about image blurring.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 15, Mochizuki further teaches an additional step of optimizing images by applying a wall filter prior to activating the Doppler mode of the ultrasound scanner (see para. 0047 "The processing circuitry 17 with the Doppler processing function 172 applies a moving target indicator (MTI) filter [wall filter] to the data strings corresponding to the same location so that signals (clutter signals) attributable to stationary tissue or slowly moving tissue are suppressed and signals attributable to a blood flow [of vascular feature] are extracted [Doppler mode signal].").
Furthermore, regarding claims 6 and 16, Mochizuki further teaches an additional step, after activating the Doppler mode of the ultrasound scanner, of selecting a prominent Doppler-mode ultrasound signal corresponding to the region of interest comprising the vascular feature (see para. 0070 "As in the example shown in FIG. 4, the peak value [prominent Doppler mode signal] is detected from the output addition-averaged power values [Doppler mode signal]. Samples showing an attenuation rate of T [dB] or below from the detected peak value are extracted from the output addition-averaged power values and determined to be the "blood flow area" [vascular feature in ROI].").
Furthermore, regarding claims 7 and 17, Mochizuki further teaches an additional step, after activating the Doppler mode of the ultrasound scanner, of placing a color box place on the region of interest (see para. 0077-"As shown in FIG. 9, a Doppler image 11 for the internal jugular vein is displayed within a ROI indication R1 [color box].").
Furthermore, regarding claims 8 and 19, Mochizuki further teaches wherein the steps of applying at least one image processing filter, generating from the preserved Doppler-mode signal the depth of the vascular feature and displaying depth of the vascular feature on the screen occur in real time and without additional user inputs (see para. 0081 "The processing circuitry 17 of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 analyzes the result of the ultrasound scanning for the part corresponding to the central portion of the scan region, so that it calculates the distance between the blood vessel within the central portion and the body surface. The processing circuitry 17 then causes the display device 40 to display the calculated distance in real time.").
Furthermore, regarding claims 9 and 18, Mochizuki further teaches wherein the screen is within a multi-purpose electronic device (Fig. 1, display device 40) which is communicatively coupled with the ultrasound scanner (ultrasound probe 20; see para. 0062 "The physician moves the ultrasound probe 20 while monitoring the tomographic image displayed on the display device 40 for the scan region ") and the step of indicating depth of the vascular feature to a user of ultrasound scanner is via at least one of a visual or an audio signal (Fig. 9; see para. 0077 "Also, a measurement line L1 is displayed [visual] as a line extending from the center of the Doppler image 11 to the surface of the ultrasound probe 20 [depth of vascular feature], and a measurement value V1 is displayed right above the point at which the surface of the ultrasound probe 20 intersects the measurement line L1.").
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Mochizuki further teaches wherein the vascular feature is any tissue through which blood flows and for which an automatic depth measurement from a skin surface is instructive for the purposes of therapy, procedures, diagnosis, or treatment (see para. 0080 "Upon confirming the measurement line and the measurement value displayed on the tomographic image, the physician inserts a puncture needle into the subject according to the display.").
The motivation for claims 3-4 and 13-14 was shown previously in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
He et al. (US 20030100833 A1, published May 29, 2003) discloses increasing the persistence causes the display of flow to persist on the 2D image.
Freiburger et al. (US 20190261952 A1, published August 29, 2019) discloses optimization strategy is selected as increasing or decreasing persistence based on comparison of the pulastility to a threshold.
Olsson (US 20040225221 A1, published November 11, 2004) discloses increasing the persistence, i.e., the number of image frames averaged, can generally make it easier to visualize features in an ultrasound image; by adaptively adjusting the persistence in each of the image areas, the image is displayed with optimum persistence in each area of the image areas.
Daigle (US 5795297 A, published August 18, 1998) discloses increasing the persistence attribute of its Doppler Estimate Object and sending the new persistence level back to the Control Ultrasound Task (or "failed" if persistence is already at its maximum level).
Arenson et al. (US 5899864 A, published May 4, 1999) discloses adaptive temporal filtering may also be applied in color Doppler Velocity and variance imaging as well as color Doppler energy imaging or other color imaging modes.
Chiang (US 20190365350 A1, published December 5, 2019) discloses the color persistence setting determines the amount to be averaged between frames. Increasing the persistence causes the display of flow to persist on the 2D image. Decreasing the persistence allows better detection of short duration jets, and provides a basis for better flow/no flow evaluations. Adjusting color persistence also produces better vessel contour depiction.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights