DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on February 13, 2026 concerning application No. 18/133,179 filed on April 11, 2023.
Claims 1-20 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 .
Response to Arguments
Examiner notes that applicant did not address the claim objection of claim 17 previously set forth. Therefore the claim objection of claim 17 stands.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 13 on pgs. 9-10 and 13 regarding the newly filed claim amendments, specifically, “displaying…the external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously” 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.
Applicant's arguments filed 02/13/2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments on pgs. 10-11 that the prior art fails to teach “displaying the probe placement graphic corresponding to the position of a face of the probe onto a body of the subject”, examiner respectfully disagrees. The rejection has been updated based on the newly filed claim amendment to now recite that [0054] of Dalvin discloses displaying virtual guiding elements overlaid on the image. also see fig. 7 and [0089] which discloses displaying guide elements such as a 3D virtual outline of an ultrasound probe positioned at the desired probe location to direct the user on how to place the ultrasound probe. Specifically, the 3D virtual outline of the ultrasound probe being positioned at the desired probe location represents the probe placement graphic corresponding to the position of a face of the probe on a body of the subject. For at least this reason, Dalvin teaches the argued limitation.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pgs. 11-12 that the prior art fails to teach “displaying an external image overlaid…without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action [0095] of Dalvin discloses the virtual 3D outlines of the desired position of the detector being displayed and the exam guidance is performed without displaying images such as those depicted in frames 806, 810, 814, 818, and 822. Therefore the poses (scanning zone label) are displayed without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure. Dalvin recites in [0095], “It should also be noted that the analysis performed by the method described in FIGS. 4A-H may be performed without creating or displaying images such as those depicted in frames 806, 810, 814, 818 and 822”, which is providing frames 806, 810, 814, 818, and 822 as examples and is not limiting the method to only these frames. Instead, [0095] specifically recites performing the method “without creating or displaying images”, therefore the method steps are being performed without creating or displaying any images and displays the scanning zone labels without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure. For at least these reasons Dalvin teaches the argued limitation.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pg. 12 that the prior art fails to teach “animating the probe placement graphic to indicate alignment of a field of view of the probe with the target view, wherein the animating the probe placement graphic comprises pulsating the probe placement graphic until alignment of the field of view with the target view has been detected”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action [0048] of Choi teaches “aiming logic 240 may analyze data from probe 110 and determine that probe 110 needs to be moved to the left on patient 150. In this case, aiming logic 240 may output text and/or graphics (e.g., flashing arrows) to display 122 to direct the user to move probe 110 in the appropriate direction”, where the flashing arrows are considered a probe placement graphic. Further, 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 a pulsating probe placement graphic of Choi to the probe placement graphic located at the position of the face of the probe at the target view of Dalvin in order to allow for the predictable results of reducing obstructions on the display, thereby making it easier for the user to visualize the working area. For at least this reason the combination of Dalvin in view of Choi teaches animating the probe placement graphic to indicate alignment of a field of view of the probe with the target view, wherein animating the probe placement graphic comprises pulsating the probe placement graphic. [0021] of Choi is further relied upon for teaching that the probe placement graphic is displayed until alignment of the field of view with the target view has been detected. Specifically, [0021] of Choi teaches “probe 110 may include a directional indicator panel (not shown in FIG. 1A) that includes a number of arrows that may be illuminated for initial targeting and guiding a user to access the targeting of an organ or structure within the ROI. For example, in some implementations, if the organ or structure is centered from placement of probe 110 placed against the dermal surface at a first location of patient 150, the directional arrows may be not illuminated. However, if the organ is off-center, an arrow or set of arrows may be illuminated to direct the user to reposition probe 110 at a second or subsequent dermal location of patient 150. In other implementations, the directional indicators may be presented on display 122 of base unit 120”. Here the arrows are being displayed illuminated on the display until the probe view is aligned with the target view. For the same reasons as above it would have been obvious to apply the probe placement graphic of Choi to the probe placement graphic of Dalvin. For at least these reasons, Dalvin in view of Choi teaches the argued limitation recited above.
In response to the applicant’s arguments on pg. 13 that the prior art fails to teach “when ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows, automatically overlaying onto the external image of the subject, one or more findings graphics, each of which corresponds to an exam finding determined by the ultrasound imaging device based on the ultrasound image data”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action, [0038] of Shiran teaches “after images and clinical findings have been associated with all of the steps in the workflow, at step 216, the processor 116 displays an examination overview including at least the first image and the first clinical finding and the second image and the second clinical finding at the same time”. Figs. 3-4 of Shiran specifically show that the overlaying of the clinical findings is on an outline of the patient and not being overlayed on the ultrasound image. Therefore, the combination of the teachings of Shiran with the method of Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi as discussed below results in the findings graphics being overlayed onto the external image of the subject. For at least these reasons the prior art of record teaches the argued limitation.
For the same reasons as discussed above claims 2-5, 7-12, and 14-20 are not considered allowable and are rejected by the prior art of record.
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 17, line 6, “between the probe” should read “between the probe and the subject”. Appropriate correction is required.
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) 1, 3-5, 8, 12-15, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Dalvin et al. (US 20190239850, hereinafter Dalvin) in view of Melapudi et al. (US 20220087645, hereinafter Melapudi) and Choi (US 20180330518).
Regarding claim 1, Dalvin teaches a method of providing guidance to a user in an ultrasound imaging procedure (Abstract discloses a method for guiding a user to perform an ultrasound exam), the method comprising:
acquiring an external image of a subject with a camera ([0048] discloses at step 208 data including images are collected via sensors. [0049] discloses “the sensor is a camera”) of a computing device ([0034] discloses the tablet display device 106 (computing device) includes a camera) communicatively coupled to an ultrasound imaging device comprising a probe (fig. 1A shows the display device 106 is connected to the ultrasound imaging device 104 which includes a probe);
identifying, in the external image, respective locations, each respective location being associated with one or more acoustic windows for acquiring ultrasound image data during the ultrasound imaging procedure in accordance with an ultrasound imaging protocol ([0051] “at 218, the system accesses the protocolized exam instructions from step 206 to determine optimal detector locations and/or distances relative to key landmarks. For example the system may access the exam instructions and extract data indicating that an ultrasound detector should be placed a certain distance superior to the navel to begin an abdominal aortic aneurysm screening”. The screening is considered the ultrasound imaging protocol and the locations in which the detector should be placed are considered the respective locations. Additionally an optical detector map is created which shows the potential optimal detector poses (locations) for performance of the screening);
displaying, on a graphical user interface of the computing device (the screen of the electronic display device 106 in fig. 1A and 702 in fig. 7), corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations ([0051]-[0052] discloses creating a probability map of the potential desired detector poses, where the map is a 3D spatial mapping of possible optimal detector poses), without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure ([0095] further discloses the virtual 3D outlines of the desired position of the detector being displayed and the exam guidance is performed without displaying images such as those depicted in frames 806, 810, 814, 818, and 822. Therefore the poses (scanning zone label) are displayed without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure); and
for each of the respective locations, and upon selection of a given location ([0052] “the system identifies the pose or set of poses at step 224 to optimally satisfy the exam instructions”), displaying onto the external image a probe placement graphic at a position of a face of the probe onto a body of the subject for acquiring a target view in the corresponding acoustic window ([0054] discloses displaying virtual guiding elements overlaid on the image. also see fig. 7 and [0089] which discloses displaying guide elements such as a 3D virtual outline of an ultrasound probe positioned at the desired probe location to direct the user on how to place the ultrasound probe).
Dalvin does not specifically teach displaying the external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously.
However,
Melapudi in a similar field of endeavor teaches displaying an external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously ([0053], [0055], [0063] and figs. 5 and 8 disclose overlaying on a displayed torso image (external image) sub-regions 560/860 (scanning zone labels) that indicate the regions of the subject that need to be imaged. Figs. 5 and 8 show the sub-regions are displayed simultaneously).
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 displaying the external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously of Melapudi to the method of Dalvin to allow for the predictable results of displaying to the user all of the locations that need imaging, thereby allowing the user to determine that no required imaging locations are being missed during the procedure. This results in a more accurate and higher quality procedure.
Dalvin in view of Melapudi does not specifically teach animating the probe placement graphic to indicate alignment of a field of view of the probe with the target view, wherein the animating the probe placement graphic comprises pulsating the probe placement graphic until alignment of the field of view with the target view has been detected.
However,
Choi in a similar field of endeavor teaches animating the probe placement graphic to indicate alignment of a field of view of the probe with the target view, wherein the animating the probe placement graphic comprises pulsating the probe placement graphic ([0048] “aiming logic 240 may analyze data from probe 110 and determine that probe 110 needs to be moved to the left on patient 150. In this case, aiming logic 240 may output text and/or graphics (e.g., flashing arrows) to display 122 to direct the user to move probe 110 in the appropriate direction”) until alignment of the field of view with the target view has been detected ([0021] “ probe 110 may include a directional indicator panel (not shown in FIG. 1A) that includes a number of arrows that may be illuminated for initial targeting and guiding a user to access the targeting of an organ or structure within the ROI. For example, in some implementations, if the organ or structure is centered from placement of probe 110 placed against the dermal surface at a first location of patient 150, the directional arrows may be not illuminated. However, if the organ is off-center, an arrow or set of arrows may be illuminated to direct the user to reposition probe 110 at a second or subsequent dermal location of patient 150. In other implementations, the directional indicators may be presented on display 122 of base unit 120”).
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 a pulsating probe placement graphic of Choi to the probe placement graphic located at the position of the face of the probe at the target view of Dalvin in view of Melapudi in order to allow for the predictable results of reducing obstructions on the display, thereby making it easier for the user to visualize the working area.
Regarding claim 13, Dalvin teaches an ultrasound imaging system (Abstract) comprising:
an ultrasound imaging device comprising a probe ([0034] discloses the hardware system includes an ultrasound detector 104 which is considered the probe); and
a guidance apparatus configured to communicatively couple to the ultrasound imaging device ([0034] and fig. 1A disclose a tablet display device which is considered the guidance apparatus and fig. 1A shows that the tablet 106 is connected to the ultrasound detector 104, meaning it is connected to the ultrasound imaging device), the guidance apparatus comprising:
a camera ([0034] “devices camera”) configured to communicatively couple to the ultrasound imaging device (fig. 1A shows the camera of the display device 106 is connected to the probe 104);
at least one processor in communication with the camera (the electronic circuitry of fig. 1A that is in communication with the tablet 106, and therefore in communication with the camera); and
a memory comprising instructions which when executed by the at least one processor cause the at least one processor to (claim 8 discloses the system includes a storage media storing computer readable instructions which are performed by a processor):
acquire an external image of a subject with the camera ([0048] discloses at step 208 data including images are collected via sensors. [0049] discloses “the sensor is a camera”);
identify, in the external image, respective locations, each respective location being associated with one or more acoustic windows for acquiring ultrasound image data during the ultrasound imaging procedure in accordance with an ultrasound imaging protocol ([0051] “at 218, the system accesses the protocolized exam instructions from step 206 to determine optimal detector locations and/or distances relative to key landmarks. For example the system may access the exam instructions and extract data indicating that an ultrasound detector should be placed a certain distance superior to the navel to begin an abdominal aortic aneurysm screening”. The screening is considered the ultrasound imaging protocol and the locations in which the detector should be placed are considered the respective locations. Additionally an optical detector map is created which shows the potential optimal detector poses (locations) for performance of the screening);
display, on a graphical user interface (the screen of the electronic display device 106 in fig. 1A and 702 in fig. 7), corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations ([0051]-[0052] discloses creating a probability map of the potential desired detector poses, where the map is a 3D spatial mapping of possible optimal detector poses), without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure ([0095] further discloses the virtual 3D outlines of the desired position of the detector being displayed and the exam guidance is performed without displaying images such as those depicted in frames 806, 810, 814, 818, and 822. Therefore the outline of the desired position of the detector (scanning zone label) is displayed without displaying the ultrasound image data acquired during the ultrasound imaging procedure); and
for each of the respective locations, and upon selection of a given location ([0052] “the system identifies the pose or set of poses at step 224 to optimally satisfy the exam instructions”), displaying onto the external image a probe placement graphic corresponding to a position of a face of the probe onto a body of the subject for acquiring a target view in the corresponding acoustic window ([0054] discloses displaying virtual guiding elements overlaid on the image. also see fig. 7 and [0089] which discloses displaying guide elements such as a 3D virtual outline of an ultrasound probe positioned at the desired probe location to direct the user on how to place the ultrasound probe).
Dalvin does not specifically teach displaying the external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously.
However,
Melapudi in a similar field of endeavor teaches displaying an external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously ([0053], [0055], [0063] and figs. 5 and 8 disclose overlaying on a displayed torso image (external image) sub-regions 560/860 (scanning zone labels) that indicate the regions of the subject that need to be imaged. Figs. 5 and 8 show the sub-regions are displayed simultaneously).
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 displaying the external image overlaid with corresponding scanning zone labels of the respective locations simultaneously of Melapudi to the method of Dalvin to allow for the predictable results of displaying to the user all of the locations that need imaging, thereby allowing the user to determine that no required imaging locations are being missed during the procedure. This results in a more accurate and higher quality procedure.
Dalvin in view of Melapudi does not specifically teach animate the probe placement graphic to indicate alignment of a field of view of the probe with the target view, wherein the animating the probe placement graphic comprises pulsating the probe placement graphic until alignment of the field of view with the target view has been detected.
However,
Choi in a similar field of endeavor teaches animating the probe placement graphic to indicate alignment of a field of view of the probe with the target view, wherein the animating the probe placement graphic comprises pulsating the probe placement graphic ([0048] “aiming logic 240 may analyze data from probe 110 and determine that probe 110 needs to be moved to the left on patient 150. In this case, aiming logic 240 may output text and/or graphics (e.g., flashing arrows) to display 122 to direct the user to move probe 110 in the appropriate direction”) until alignment of the field of view with the target view has been detected ([0021] “ probe 110 may include a directional indicator panel (not shown in FIG. 1A) that includes a number of arrows that may be illuminated for initial targeting and guiding a user to access the targeting of an organ or structure within the ROI. For example, in some implementations, if the organ or structure is centered from placement of probe 110 placed against the dermal surface at a first location of patient 150, the directional arrows may be not illuminated. However, if the organ is off-center, an arrow or set of arrows may be illuminated to direct the user to reposition probe 110 at a second or subsequent dermal location of patient 150. In other implementations, the directional indicators may be presented on display 122 of base unit 120”).
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 a pulsating probe placement graphic of Choi to the probe placement graphic located at the position of the face of the probe at the target view of Dalvin in view of Melapudi in order to allow for the predictable results of reducing obstructions on the display, thereby making it easier for the user to visualize the working area.
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 13, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches animating the probe placement graphic to further indicate acoustic coupling between the probe and the subject ([0090]-[0092] disclose providing an indication that the probe has been placed in a correct position and further displaying the ultrasound imaging as an indication that the probe has been successfully coupled to the probe),
wherein said animating the probe placement graphic comprises
changing a color of the probe placement graphic upon detecting acoustic coupling between the probe and the subject ([0041] discloses using color-changing elements as the guiding elements which change when the exam or subsets thereof are completed which include completion of exam instructions. The exam instructions include moving the probe to contact the subject and further detecting the that the probe is in the correct position which corresponds to detecting coupling between the probe and the subject).
Regarding claim 4, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches upon detecting acoustic coupling between the probe and the subject ([0069] discloses assessing images to determine if the probe is in contact against the examinees body), displaying at least one scanning guidance graphic onto the external image and updating the at least one scanning guidance graphic in real-time based, in part, on the ultrasound image data acquired by the ultrasound imaging device ([0066] discloses generating updated virtual guidance elements based on real-time (live) images collected by the ultrasound detector).
Regarding claim 5, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 4, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches determining whether an expected volume of the ultrasound image data from a current acoustic window has been recorded ([0068] discloses comparing features of the current image to features that are derived from comparison images stored in a database to determine if the current image is optimal, thereby determining if an expected volume is recorded), wherein the at least one scanning guidance graphic comprises a progress indicator graphic animated to indicate a status of the recording of the expected volume ([0069] discloses updating the guide elements based on the comparison. [0053] discloses the virtual guiding elements include progress bars to indicate the progress of the medical examination. By updating the progress bar the progress indicator graphic is being animated to indicate a status of the recording),
wherein the progress indicator graphic comprises a circular progress bar encircling the probe placement graphic in the external image, and/or
wherein the at least one scanning guidance graphic further comprises a pressure indicator graphic displayed onto the external image adjacent to the progress indicator graphic ([0091]-[0092] disclose a graphic for providing compression is displayed to the user via text. The compression graphic is considered the pressure indicator graphic. [0053] discloses both the text instruction (pressure indicator graphic) and progress bar are displayed as virtual guiding elements).
Regarding claim 8, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches the computing device is a hand-held device or a wearable device ([0054] discloses displaying the information on a head mounted display which is considered a wearable device. Display device 120 in fig. 1B), and the external image is acquired by a camera integrated into the hand-held device or the wearable device ([0067] “camera 4114 mounted on a…head-mounted display device), and wherein said acquiring and displaying of the external image comprises recording and playing back, in real-time, a video of the subject ([0054] discloses the external image includes a live video feed).
Regarding claim 12, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (claims 10-14 of Dalvin disclose a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that are executed by a processor), causes the one or more processors to perform the method according to claim 1 (As set forth above Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches performing the method of claim 1).
Regarding claim 14, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the system of claim 13, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches at least one of:
the camera comprises a stereo camera, a LiDAR optical device, or a combination of the two; or
the ultrasound imaging device is a handheld imaging device integrated into a housing of the probe (fig. 5B shows that the ultrasound probe 506 is a handheld imaging device which performs the imaging of the subject and [0035] discloses the exam device is an ultrasound probe, meaning the ultrasound imaging device is integrated into a housing of the probe).
Regarding claim 15, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the system of claim 13, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches the camera is built into a tablet or an augmented reality headset ([0034] discloses “the tablet display device 106 such that the devices camera”, meaning the camera is built into the tablet), and wherein the graphical user interface is provided on a display of the tablet or augmented reality headset ([0040] discloses “renders the virtual exam guide elements using a head-mounted augmented reality display system, smartphone or tablet display screen”, by rendering the exam guide elements on the display of the augmented reality display or tablet the graphical user interface is provided on a display of the tablet or augmented reality headset).
Regarding claim 20, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches automatically determining an order of acquiring the ultrasound imaging data in accordance with the ultrasound imaging protocol ([0047] discloses performing the first step of the method automatically. [0048] discloses “at 206, the system identifies, loads, and/or downloads exam instructions that may be used to guide the performance of the examination. Exam instructions may include information such as the number of views required, the proper sequence in which the user might obtain the views, positional and/or rotational information pertaining to probe placement, and/or other instructive elements”, the proper sequence of the views corresponds to the determined order of acquiring the ultrasound imaging data), wherein the probe placement graphic corresponding to the position of the face of the probe is displayed onto the external image in the determined order ([0053] discloses that in step 226 the ‘ghost’ outline of the probe is provided for the purpose of guidance. [0059] and fig. 2 discloses when it is determined that additional views are required the method returns to step 210 and the process is repeated. Therefore the ‘ghost’ is displayed for each of the views in the determined order).
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Rothberg (US 20190059851).
Regarding claim 2, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi does not specifically teach each of the scanning zone labels is a selectable graphical element of the graphical user interface configured to enable the user to select the corresponding location to initiate sequential displaying of the scanning zone labels.
However,
Rothberg in a similar field of endeavor teaches each of the scanning zone labels is a selectable graphical element of the graphical user interface configured to enable the user to select the corresponding location to initiate sequential displaying of the scanning zone labels ([0113], “the operator may select (e.g., from a menu) the target ultrasound image needed, and the host device or the server may be configured to look up in the database of predetermined paths the predetermined path for collecting the selected target ultrasound image”, where the predetermined path is then displayed for the user).
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi to have each of the scanning zone labels be a selectable graphical element of the graphical user interface configured to enable the user to select the corresponding location to initiate sequential displaying of the scanning zone labels in order to allow for the user to be able to decide the order in which they view the locations, thereby making the method more efficient. For example, when the user only wants to view a specific location of the respective locations and not all of the locations.
Regarding claim 16, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the system of claim 13, as set forth above. Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi does not specifically teach each of the scanning zone labels is a selectable graphical element of the graphical user interface configured to enable the user to select the corresponding location to initiate sequential displaying of the probe placement graphic.
However,
Rothberg in a similar field of endeavor teaches each of the scanning zone labels is a selectable graphical element of the graphical user interface configured to enable the user to select the corresponding location to initiate sequential displaying of the probe placement graphic ([0113], “the operator may select (e.g., from a menu) the target ultrasound image needed, and the host device or the server may be configured to look up in the database of predetermined paths the predetermined path for collecting the selected target ultrasound image”, where the predetermined path is then displayed for the user).
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi to have each of the scanning zone labels be a selectable graphical element of the graphical user interface configured to enable the user to select the corresponding location to initiate sequential displaying of the probe placement graphic in order to allow for the user to be able to decide the order in which they view the locations, thereby making the method more efficient. For example, when the user only wants to view a specific location of the respective locations and not all of the locations.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Shiran (US20200367859, hereinafter Shiran).
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1 and system of claim 13, as set forth above. Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi does not specifically teach determining whether ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows of the ultrasound imaging protocol; and when ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows, automatically overlaying onto the external image of the subject, one or more findings graphics, each of which corresponds to an exam finding determined by the ultrasound imaging device based on the ultrasound image data.
However,
Shiran in a similar field of endeavor teaches determining whether ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows of the ultrasound imaging protocol ([0033] discloses at step 214 in fig. 2 it is determined whether there are more anatomical zones to image, when it is determined that there are no more zones it is determined data has been acquired for each of the zones (acoustic windows); and when ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows, automatically ([0034] discloses the workflow is automatic) overlaying onto the image of the subject, one or more findings graphics, each of which corresponds to an exam finding determined by the ultrasound imaging device based on the ultrasound image data ([0038] “after images and clinical findings have been associated with all of the steps in the workflow, at step 216, the processor 116 displays an examination overview including at least the first image and the first clinical finding and the second image and the second clinical finding at the same time”. See fig. 4 which discloses displaying each of the images (findings) on the image that represents the area of the subject from which the images were obtained).
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi to have determined whether ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows of the ultrasound imaging protocol; and when ultrasound image data has been acquired for each of the acoustic windows, automatically overlaying onto the external image of the subject, one or more findings graphics, each of which corresponds to an exam finding determined by the ultrasound imaging device based on the ultrasound image data in order to provide a concise summary of the workflow to the user, as recognized by Shiran ([0040]).
Regarding claim 7, Dalvin in view of Melapudi, Choi and Shiran teaches the method of claim 6, as set forth above. Shiran further teaches each of the one or more findings graphics is selectable ([0041]-[0043] discloses that each of the tiles that show the clinical findings are selectable by a user), and wherein responsive to a selection of one of the one or more findings graphics, the method further comprises retrieving and displaying a portion of the ultrasound image data associated with the selected findings graphic ([0043] discloses that a user views each of the images associated with an anatomical zone when they interact with and select a specific anatomical zone).
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Krieger et al. (US 20200194117, hereinafter Krieger).
Regarding claim 9, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin in view of Choi does not specifically teach identifying the respective locations comprises applying a deep learning algorithm to one or more frames of the external image to identify the respective locations.
However,
Krieger in a similar field of endeavor teaches identifying respective locations comprises applying a deep learning algorithm to one or more frames of the external image to identify the respective locations ([0099] discloses “the machine learning model 244 can identify…correctly identified location or region of interest within the image…the identified location(s) 248 (or region of interest) for each image can be mapped to the 3D point cloud 242 (or model)”.
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi to have identifying the respective locations comprise applying a deep learning algorithm to one or more frames of the external image to identify the respective locations as known from Krieger in order to allow for the predictable results of increasing the efficiency of the identification, by relying on the deep learning model to perform the identifying.
Regarding claim 10, Dalvin in view of Melapudi, Choi and Krieger teaches the method of claim 9, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches acquiring a 3D dataset representative of a shape of the subject's body and generating a 3D model of the subject from the 3D dataset ([0051] discloses assembling a 3D examination environment from information including anatomical landmarks, camera pose, and detector pose information. The information used to generate the 3D exam environment is considered the 3D dataset and the 3D examination environment is considered the 3D model of the subject as well as its surrounding area), and registering the external image to the 3D model of the subject ([0051] by using the identified anatomical landmarks of step 300 the external image is being registered to the 3D model).
Krieger further teaches a deep learning algorithm trained to use the registered external image and the 3D model for identifying respective locations ([0099] discloses “the machine learning model 244 can identify…correctly identified location or region of interest within the image…the identified location(s) 248 (or region of interest) for each image can be mapped to the 3D point cloud 242 (or model)” and [0082] discloses “a 3D model of a patient”, meaning the model in [0099] is a 3D model).
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Melapudi, Choi and Krieger to have the deep learning algorithm is trained to use the registered external image and the 3D model for identifying the respective locations as known from Krieger in order to allow for the predictable results of increasing the efficiency of the identification, by relying on the deep learning model to perform the identifying.
Regarding claim 19, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi does not specifically teach the external image is provided to a trained machine learning algorithm to identify the respective locations associated with one or more acoustic windows.
However,
Krieger in a similar field of endeavor teaches an external image is provided to a trained machine learning algorithm to identify the respective locations associated with one or more acoustic windows ([0099] discloses “the machine learning model 244 can identify…correctly identified location or region of interest within the image…the identified location(s) 248 (or region of interest) for each image can be mapped to the 3D point cloud 242 (or model)”.
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Choi to have the external image be provided to a trained machine learning algorithm to identify the respective locations associated with one or more acoustic windows as known from Krieger in order to allow for the predictable results of increasing the efficiency of the identification, by relying on the deep learning model to perform the identifying.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zaslavsky (US 20200069291).
Regarding claim 11, Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi teaches the method of claim 1, as set forth above. Dalvin further teaches the ultrasound imaging device is a hand-held imaging device (fig. 5B shows that the user is holding the ultrasound probe 506, meaning the ultrasound imaging device is a hand-held imaging device).
Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi does not specifically teach the ultrasound imaging device comprises at least a transducer array, a beamformer, and a signal processor configured to produce the ultrasound image data from echoes detected by the transducer array, wherein the transducer array, the beamformer and the signal processor are all enclosed within a housing of the probe.
However,
Zaslavsky in a similar field of endeavor teaches an ultrasound imaging device (ultrasound imaging device 114 in fig. 1) comprises at least a transducer array ([0042] discloses the ultrasound device 114 includes a transducer array), a beamformer ([0042] discloses the ultrasound device 114 includes transmit and receive beamformers), and a signal processor configured to produce the ultrasound image data from echoes detected by the transducer array ([0042] discloses “the ultrasound circuitry 111 may be configured to generate the ultrasound data”, the circuitry 111 is considered the signal processor), wherein the transducer array, the beamformer and the signal processor are all enclosed within a housing of the probe ([0042] discloses the transducer array, beamformer and signal processor are within the ultrasound imaging device 114. Fig. 2 shows that the device 114 is an ultrasound probe, therefore the array, beamformer and signal processor are enclosed within the housing of the probe).
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 method disclosed by Dalvin in view of Melapudi and Choi to have the ultrasound imaging device comprise at least a transducer array, a beamformer, and a signal processor configured to produce the ultrasound image data from echoes detected by the transducer array, wherein the transducer array, the beamformer and the signal processor are all enclosed within a housing of the probe in order to reduce the size of the system, thereby making it easier to use and transport. Additionally, it allows the ultrasound imaging device to be used with multiple different other systems and servers because it is able to generate its own data.
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