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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 12, 14 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azhari et al. (WO 2007/102161; hereinafter Azhari), in view of Srinivasa Naidu et al. (US 2021/0353260; hereinafter Srinivasa).
Regarding claim 1, Azhari discloses a device for ultrasound monitored tissue treatment. Azhari shows a method of controlling an ultrasound probe (see abstract), comprising: at a computing device that includes one or more processors and memory (see page 5, lines 3-24, page 32, lines 27-30): during a first portion of a first scan performed by the ultrasound probe (see page 28, lines 6-28), receiving first imaging data acquired via the ultrasound probe (see page 28, lines 6-28), wherein the first imaging data was acquired in accordance with a first set of imaging control parameters (see page 28, lines 6-28), and wherein the first set of imaging control parameters requires that a first subset of a plurality of transducers of the ultrasound probe are activated during the first portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-28); and during a second portion (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30), after the first portion, of the first scan performed by the ultrasound probe, causing the ultrasound probe to acquire second imaging data in accordance with a second set of imaging control parameters (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A), wherein the second set of imaging control parameters requires that a second subset of the plurality of transducers (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A), different from the first subset of the plurality of transducers see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A), are activated during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A).
But, Azhari fails to explicitly state in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion.
Srinivasa discloses an ultrasound system with automated dynamic setting of image parameters based on organ detection. Srinivasa teaches in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
Regarding claim 3, Azhari shows causing the ultrasound probe to continue using the first set of imaging control parameters to acquire additional imaging data during the second portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-2, page 29, lines 8-30, page 31, lines 15-28; fig. 7A and 10), and Srinivasa teaches determining that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3), and a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan, and a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
Regarding claim 7, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Srinivasa teaches determining a respective scan type for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3), wherein the respective scan type corresponds to a respective target anatomical structure (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3); and selecting the first set of image control parameters based at least in part on the respective scan type that is determined for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining a respective scan type for the first scan, wherein the respective scan type corresponds to a respective target anatomical structure, and selecting the first set of image control parameters based at least in part on the respective scan type that is determined for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
Regarding claim 8, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention as substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Srinivasa teaches determining the one or more quality requirements for the first scan according to the respective scan type for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining the one or more quality requirements for the first scan according to the respective scan type for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
Regarding claim 12, Azhari discloses a device for ultrasound monitored tissue treatment. Azhari shows a computing device, comprising: one or more processors; and memory (see page 5, lines 3-24, page 32, lines 27-30); and one or more programs stored in the memory and configured for execution by the one or more processors (see page 5, lines 3-24, page 32, lines 27-30), the one or more programs comprising instructions for: during a first portion of a first scan performed by the ultrasound probe (see page 28, lines 6-28), receiving first imaging data acquired via the ultrasound probe see page 28, lines 6-28), wherein the first imaging data was acquired in accordance with a first set of imaging control parameters see page 28, lines 6-28), and wherein the first set of imaging control parameters requires that a first subset of a plurality of transducers of the ultrasound probe are activated during the first portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-28); and during a second portion (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30), after the first portion, of the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to acquire second imaging data in accordance with a second set of imaging control parameters (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A), wherein the second set of imaging control parameters requires that a second subset of the plurality of transducers (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A), different from the first subset of the plurality of transducers, are activated during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A).
But, Azhari fails to explicitly state in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion.
Srinivasa discloses an ultrasound system with automated dynamic setting of image parameters based on organ detection. Srinivasa teaches in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
Regarding claim 14, Azhari shows causing the ultrasound probe to continue using the first set of imaging control parameters to acquire additional imaging data during the second portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-2, page 29, lines 8-30, page 31, lines 15-28; fig. 7A and 10), and Srinivasa teaches determining that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3), and a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0032], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan, and a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
Regarding claim 17, Azhari discloses a device for ultrasound monitored tissue treatment. Azhari shows a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing one or more programs that, when executed by a computing device having one or more processors and memory (see page 5, lines 3-24, page 32, lines 27-30), cause the computing device to perform operations comprising: during a first portion of a first scan performed by the ultrasound probe (see page 28, lines 6-28), receiving first imaging data acquired via the ultrasound probe (see page 28, lines 6-28), wherein the first imaging data was acquired in accordance with a first set of imaging control parameters (see page 28, lines 6-28), and wherein the first set of imaging control parameters requires that a first subset of a plurality of transducers of the ultrasound probe are activated during the first portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-28); and during a second portion (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30), after the first portion, of the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to acquire second imaging data in accordance with a second set of imaging control parameters see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A, wherein the second set of imaging control parameters requires that a second subset of the plurality of transducers see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A, different from the first subset of the plurality of transducers see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A), are activated during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan (see page 28, lines 6-28, page 29, lines 8-30; fig. 7A).
But, Azhari fails to explicitly state in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion.
Srinivasa discloses an ultrasound system with automated dynamic setting of image parameters based on organ detection. Srinivasa teaches in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a first set of conditions associated with one or more quality requirement for the first scan, causing the ultrasound probe to perform the second portion in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
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.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azhari et al. (WO 2007/102161; hereinafter Azhari), in view of Srinivasa Naidu et al. (US 2021/0353260; hereinafter Srinivasa) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Millet et al. (US 9,575,165; hereinafter Miller).
Regarding claim 2, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Srinivas shows in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3)), and in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan, and in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
But, Azhari and Srinivasa fail to explicitly state causing the ultrasound probe to acquire third imaging data in accordance with a third set of imaging control parameters during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan, wherein the third set of imaging control parameters is different from the second set of imaging control parameters.
Miller discloses an ultrasound imaging system. Miller teaches causing the ultrasound probe to acquire third imaging data in accordance with a third set of imaging control parameters during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan (see claims 19 and 20), wherein the third set of imaging control parameters is different from the second set of imaging control parameters (see claims 19 and 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of causing the ultrasound probe to acquire third imaging data in accordance with a third set of imaging control parameters during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan, wherein the third set of imaging control parameters is different from the second set of imaging control parameters in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Miller, provide a better quality of plurality of images of the region of interest based on different signal parameters to determine a variety of features.
Regarding claim 13, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Srinivas shows in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3)), and in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan, and in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data meets a second set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
But, Azhari and Srinivasa fail to explicitly state causing the ultrasound probe to acquire third imaging data in accordance with a third set of imaging control parameters during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan, wherein the third set of imaging control parameters is different from the second set of imaging control parameters.
Miller discloses an ultrasound imaging system. Miller teaches causing the ultrasound probe to acquire third imaging data in accordance with a third set of imaging control parameters during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan (see claims 19 and 20), wherein the third set of imaging control parameters is different from the second set of imaging control parameters (see claims 19 and 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of causing the ultrasound probe to acquire third imaging data in accordance with a third set of imaging control parameters during the second portion of the first scan following the first portion of the first scan, wherein the third set of imaging control parameters is different from the second set of imaging control parameters in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Miller, provide a better quality of plurality of images of the region of interest based on different signal parameters to determine a variety of features.
Claims 4-6, 9, 15, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azhari et al. (WO 2007/102161; hereinafter Azhari), in view of Srinivasa Naidu et al. (US 2021/0353260; hereinafter Srinivasa) as applied to claims 1 and 12 above in view of Fiegoli et al. (US 2023/0404541, relied on provisional filing data; hereinafter Fiegoli).
Regarding claim 4, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Srinivasa shows in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
But, Azhari and Srinivasa fail to explicitly state determining one or more operations for adjusting the ultrasound probe during the second portion of the first scan; and performing at least one of the one or more operations.
Fiegoli discloses a method and system for managing ultrasound operations. Fiegoli teaches determining one or more operations for adjusting the ultrasound probe during the second portion of the first scan (see par. [0098], [0101], [0170]; [0192], [0202]); and performing at least one of the one or more operations (see par. [0098], [0101], [0170]; [0192], [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining one or more operations for adjusting the ultrasound probe during the second portion of the first scan; and performing at least one of the one or more operations in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 5, Azhari, Srinivasa and Fiegoli disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Feigoli teaches wherein performing at least one of the one or more operations includes providing guidance for one or more recommended movements to be executed by the ultrasound probe (see par. [0098], [0101], [0170]; [0192], [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of performing at least one of the one or more operations includes providing guidance for one or more recommended movements to be executed by the ultrasound probe in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 6, Azhari, Srinivasa and Fiegoli disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Feigoli teaches wherein performing at least one of the one or more operations includes adjusting one or more of the first set of imaging control parameters when acquiring a next ultrasound image using the ultrasound probe (see par. [0098], [0101], [0145], [0170]; [0192], [0202]; fig. 4, 16A-B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of performing at least one of the one or more operations includes adjusting one or more of the first set of imaging control parameters when acquiring a next ultrasound image using the ultrasound probe in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 9, Azhari and Srinivas disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails wherein determining whether the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions includes: determining a respective value of a first quality measure for a first ultrasound image in the first imaging data; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the first ultrasound image exceeds a first threshold value for the first quality measure.
Fiegoli discloses a method and system for managing ultrasound operations. Fiegoli teaches determining whether the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions includes: determining a respective value of a first quality measure for a first ultrasound image in the first imaging data measure (see par. [0098], [0101], [0145], [0170]; [0192], [0202]); and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the first ultrasound image exceeds a first threshold value for the first quality measure (see par. [0098], [0101], [0145], [0170]; [0192], [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining whether the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions includes: determining a respective value of a first quality measure for a first ultrasound image in the first imaging data; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the first ultrasound image exceeds a first threshold value for the first quality measure in the invention of Azhari and Srinivas, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 15, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Srinivasa shows in accordance with a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan (see par. [0028]. [0029], [0031], [0045], [0051]-[0052] and fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a determination that the first imaging data does not meet the first set of conditions associated with the one or more quality requirements for the first scan in the invention of Azhari, as taught by Srinivasa, to be able to automatically adjust imaging parameters of the system to tissue specific setting based on different organ detection to provide optical ultrasound images.
But, Azhari and Srinivasa fail to explicitly state determining one or more operations for adjusting the ultrasound probe during the second portion of the first scan; and performing at least one of the one or more operations.
Fiegoli discloses a method and system for managing ultrasound operations. Fiegoli teaches determining one or more operations for adjusting the ultrasound probe during the second portion of the first scan (see par. [0098], [0101], [0170]; [0192], [0202]); and performing at least one of the one or more operations (see par. [0098], [0101], [0170]; [0192], [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining one or more operations for adjusting the ultrasound probe during the second portion of the first scan; and performing at least one of the one or more operations in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 16, Azhari, Srinivasa and Fiegoli disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Feigoli teaches wherein performing at least one of the one or more operations includes providing guidance for one or more recommended movements to be executed by the ultrasound probe (see par. [0098], [0101], [0170]; [0192], [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of performing at least one of the one or more operations includes providing guidance for one or more recommended movements to be executed by the ultrasound probe in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 18, Azhari and Srinivas disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails wherein determining whether the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions includes: determining a respective value of a first quality measure for a first ultrasound image in the first imaging data; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the first ultrasound image exceeds a first threshold value for the first quality measure.
Fiegoli discloses a method and system for managing ultrasound operations. Fiegoli teaches determining whether the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions includes: determining a respective value of a first quality measure for a first ultrasound image in the first imaging data measure (see par. [0098], [0101], [0145], [0170]; [0192], [0202]); and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the first ultrasound image exceeds a first threshold value for the first quality measure (see par. [0098], [0101], [0145], [0170]; [0192], [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of determining whether the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions includes: determining a respective value of a first quality measure for a first ultrasound image in the first imaging data; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the first ultrasound image exceeds a first threshold value for the first quality measure in the invention of Azhari and Srinivas, as taught by Fiegoli, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Claims 10-11 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azhari et al. (WO 2007/102161; hereinafter Azhari), in view of Srinivasa Naidu et al. (US 2021/0353260; hereinafter Srinivasa) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Bharat et al. (US 2023/0066948; hereinafter Bharat).
Regarding claim 10, Azahri and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state predicting a respective value for a first quality measure for a next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters would exceed a first threshold value for the first quality measure.
Bharat discloses an ultrasound guidance method and system. Bharat teaches predicting a respective value for a first quality measure for a next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters (see par. [0107], [0110], [0139]); and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters would exceed a first threshold value for the first quality measure (see par. [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of predicting a respective value for a first quality measure for a next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters would exceed a first threshold value for the first quality measure in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Bharat, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 11, Azhari, Srinivasa and Bharat disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bharat teaches predicting the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired based on a predicted trajectory of the ultrasound probe (see par. [0107], [0110], [0139]; see fig. 1-3 and 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of predicting the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired based on a predicted trajectory of the ultrasound probe in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Bharat, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 19, Azhari and Srinivasa disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state predicting a respective value for a first quality measure for a next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters would exceed a first threshold value for the first quality measure.
Bharat discloses an ultrasound guidance method and system. Bharat teaches predicting a respective value for a first quality measure for a next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters (see par. [0107], [0110], [0139]); and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters would exceed a first threshold value for the first quality measure (see par. [0192]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of predicting a respective value for a first quality measure for a next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters; and determining that the first imaging data meets the first set of conditions in accordance with a determination that the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired in accordance with the first set of imaging control parameters would exceed a first threshold value for the first quality measure in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Bharat, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Regarding claim 20, Azhari, Srinivasa and Bharat disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Bharat teaches predicting the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired based on a predicted trajectory of the ultrasound probe (see par. [0107], [0110], [0139]; see fig. 1-3 and 5-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of predicting the respective value of the first quality measure for the next ultrasound image to be acquired based on a predicted trajectory of the ultrasound probe in the invention of Azhari and Srinivasa, as taught by Bharat, to provide a better quality of the image, and producing the image at a faster speed.
Response to Arguments
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) to claims 1, 12 and 17 has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to prior art rejection of the independent claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any rejection applied in the prior office action of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. The examiner has provided new prior art Srinivasa.
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 SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797