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 .
Status of Claims
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on 03/27/2026. Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 13-16, and 18 have been amended. Claims 5 and 6 were previously cancelled. Claims 1-4 and 7-21 are presently pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim recites an error on line 1. This should be amended to be “The method of claim 1” as understood from the original claims. 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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa (US 20210353260) in view of Perrey (US 20200113542 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Srinivasa teaches a method (Paragraph [0004]; ultrasound imaging systems and methods for ultrasonically inspecting biological tissue), comprising:
at a computer system (Paragraph [0038]-[0040]; ultrasound system base 230 including processor 223, Fig. 2) that includes one or more processors (Paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0045]; signal processor 222, image data processor 223; controller 224; the processor 223 may include a display processor 234, Fig. 2) and memory (Paragraph [0049]; local memory 229):
obtaining a first ultrasound image of a living subject (Paragraph [0051]; received image 304… type of biological tissue represented in the ultrasound image 304, Fig. 3) and a respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0054]; the processor 300 may be configured to retrieve the selected tissue specific preset (TSP) 312 from memory 318 (e.g., local memory of the ultrasound scanner); receive an input vector having a dimension n+i, where n corresponds to the number of settings defined by the TSP 312, Fig. 3) via an ultrasound device (Paragraph [0030]; ultrasound scanner 101-j, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0050]; as input, an ultrasound image 304, which may be coupled to processor 300 in real-time (e.g., during live imaging));
processing the first ultrasound image of the living subject to obtain one or more attributes of the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0051]-[0052]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304… classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications; tissue type 315, Fig. 3);
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the first ultrasound image of the living subject meet first criteria (Paragraph [0052]; determined by the processor, based upon training, to be suitable for imaging that type of tissue) comprising a determination that a first set of anatomical landmarks has been detected in the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0028]-[0029] and [0051]-[0052]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304; classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications, Fig. 3; The determination of an organ or tissue type is considered to read on the claimed limitation of a first set of anatomical landmarks as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation), and without user intervention (Paragraph [0052]; which may then be automatically applied to reconfigure the ultrasound imaging system… As the processor 300 performs tissue type identification and settings prediction in the background, the need for operator involvement in setting the appropriate imaging parameters may be obviated), presenting (Paragraph [0045]; present annotations along with the image data, such as annotations identifying the preset selected, any adjustments made to the preset such as by highlighting those imaging parameters that were tuned by the artificial neural network), via a user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0035]; a user interface 236 including a display 238), a first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0052]; configured to output a set of imaging parameters… output one or more predicted settings 314, Fig. 3), different from the respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0052]; determines that a different set of imaging parameter settings should be applied rather than the selected settings), for acquiring a second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0031]; the tissue-specific preset selected based on the identified type of tissue is automatically applied to adjust the imaging parameter settings of the ultrasound scanner 101-j for subsequent live imaging (at block 116), Fig. 1); and
controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended parameters (Paragraph [0031]; subsequent live imaging (e.g., acquisition and display of image data) by the ultrasound scanner 101-j (at block 116) occurs using the automatically reconfigured imaging settings).
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation; acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject in the predefined order via the ultrasound device, wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks.
Perry, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0003]; a method comprises outputting to a user, instructions for navigating a medical imaging probe from a current scan position to a next scan position for obtaining a desired scan plane of a target anatomical structure), comprising:
at a computer system (Paragraph [0012]; a medical diagnostic system (MDS) 100) that includes one or more processors and memory (Paragraph [0012]; includes a controller (e.g., controller circuit) 102… and a memory 106):
obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation (Paragraph [0050]; The method proceeds to 211 to initialize the algorithms and models according to a selected scan protocol. A scan protocol may include a list of the images and measurements that should be acquired during a specified ultrasound examination (e.g., procedure). The list of images may include specified scan planes at certain organs or anatomical landmarks);
acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject (Paragraph [0060]; the method continues to 234 to store the identified image and set the scan protocol to the next target plane… The controller may then set the next target scan plane in the scan protocol and return to the method at 211 in FIG. 2A, as described above. In this way, method 200 may repeat; Paragraph [0028]; The images and/or image data may be classified by scan plane of an anatomical structure and/or by anatomical landmark/structure such that a target or desired scan plane or anatomical structure is identified by the controller) in the predefined order via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0060]; The controller may then set the next target scan plane in the scan protocol and return to the method at 211), wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks (Paragraph [0050]; For example, the list may include a particular plane (e.g., scan plane) within the organ or anatomical feature that contains the desired view. Each protocol may include a plurality of these desired views or images and corresponding measurements to be taken. Each item in the scan protocol may utilize individual models and algorithms (e.g., first item head, second item heart).); and
controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0050]; before starting a scan protocol item, the method at 211 may include selecting the appropriate models and algorithms (e.g., the models and algorithms that correspond to the anatomical part to be scanned in the scan protocol item) for the next scan protocol item; Paragraph [0031]; ultrasound probe 126 may be configured to acquire ultrasound data or information from the anatomical structures (e.g., organ, blood vessel, heart) of the patient based on the predetermined settings.; Paragraph [0037]; The RF processor 132 may generate different ultrasound image data types… different scanning patterns based on the predetermined settings of the first model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa to have further included obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation; acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject in the predefined order via the ultrasound device, wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks as taught by Perrey because it would have allowed automatically detecting target scan planes of anatomical structures, thereby producing desired image views that increase the accuracy of medical diagnosis based on the selected images (Paragraph [0010]) and further improved the efficiency of diagnosis over multiple structures.
Regarding claim 3, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa further teaches controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters includes:
without user intervention, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended preset operational parameters to acquire the second ultrasound image (Paragraph [0052]; the settings prediction model 320 is trained to output one or more predicted settings 314, which may then be automatically applied to reconfigure the ultrasound imaging system, such as by coupling them to one or more controllers 301 of the system; Paragraph [0031]; subsequent live imaging (e.g., acquisition and display of image data) by the ultrasound scanner 101-j (at block 116) occurs using the automatically reconfigured imaging settings, Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 4, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa further teaches presenting, via the user interface of the computer system, the first set of recommended preset operational parameters includes displaying, on a display coupled to the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0035]-[0036]; FIG. 2 also shows a user interface 236 including a display 238), the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0045]; causing the display 238 to present annotations along with the image data, such as annotations identifying the preset selected, any adjustments made to the preset such as by highlighting those imaging parameters that were tuned by the artificial neural network).
Regarding claim 7, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa further teaches the first set of recommended preset operational parameters includes one or more elements selected from the group consisting of:
a frequency of acoustic waves emitted by the ultrasound device (Paragraphs [0024]; the imaging frequency);
a time gain compensation for the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0024]; the time gain compensation (TCG));
an imaging depth (Paragraph [0024]; the depth at which the ultrasound beam is focused);
a field of view (Paragraph [0024]; dynamic range for display (or Compression)… the focus (or focal zone)); and
a beam forming profile of acoustic waves emitted by the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0043]; control or set the imaging parameters of the system 200, which settings may be utilized by the beamformer 220 in controlling the excitation of elements of the array for the transmission and detection of signals by the array 212).
Regarding claim 16, Srinivasa teaches a computer system (Paragraph [0038]-[0040]; ultrasound system base 230 including processor 223, Fig. 2), comprising:
one or more processors (Paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0045]; signal processor 222, image data processor 223; controller 224; the processor 223 may include a display processor 234, Fig. 2); and
memory (Paragraph [0049]; local memory 229) storing one or more programs (Paragraph [0046]; settings prediction engine 227, which may be embodied in any suitable combination of software), the one or more programs comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraph [0046]; functionality of engine 227 may be implemented via processor-executable instructions 225, which when executed by processor 223 configure or program the processor to perform the functions associated with generating predicted settings) comprising:
obtaining a first ultrasound image of a living subject (Paragraph [0051]; received image 304… type of biological tissue represented in the ultrasound image 304, Fig. 3) and a respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0054]; the processor 300 may be configured to retrieve the selected tissue specific preset (TSP) 312 from memory 318 (e.g., local memory of the ultrasound scanner); receive an input vector having a dimension n+i, where n corresponds to the number of settings defined by the TSP 312, Fig. 3) via an ultrasound device (Paragraph [0030]; ultrasound scanner 101-j, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0050]; as input, an ultrasound image 304, which may be coupled to processor 300 in real-time (e.g., during live imaging));
processing the first ultrasound image of the living subject to obtain one or more attributes of the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0051]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304… classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications; tissue type 315, Fig. 3);
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the first ultrasound image of the living subject meet first criteria (Paragraph [0052]; determined by the processor, based upon training, to be suitable for imaging that type of tissue) comprising a determination that a first set of anatomical landmarks has been detected in the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0028]-[0029] and [0051]-[0052]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304; classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications, Fig. 3; The determination of an organ or tissue type is considered to read on the claimed limitation of a first set of anatomical landmarks as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation), and without user intervention (Paragraph [0052]; which may then be automatically applied to reconfigure the ultrasound imaging system… As the processor 300 performs tissue type identification and settings prediction in the background, the need for operator involvement in setting the appropriate imaging parameters may be obviated), presenting (Paragraph [0045]; present annotations along with the image data, such as annotations identifying the preset selected, any adjustments made to the preset such as by highlighting those imaging parameters that were tuned by the artificial neural network), via a user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0035]; a user interface 236 including a display 238), a first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0052]; configured to output a set of imaging parameters… output one or more predicted settings 314, Fig. 3), different from the respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0052]; determines that a different set of imaging parameter settings should be applied rather than the selected settings), for acquiring a second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0031]; the tissue-specific preset selected based on the identified type of tissue is automatically applied to adjust the imaging parameter settings of the ultrasound scanner 101-j for subsequent live imaging (at block 116), Fig. 1); and
controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0031]; subsequent live imaging (e.g., acquisition and display of image data) by the ultrasound scanner 101-j (at block 116) occurs using the automatically reconfigured imaging settings).
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation; acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject in the predefined order via the ultrasound device, wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks.
Perry, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0003]; a method comprises outputting to a user, instructions for navigating a medical imaging probe from a current scan position to a next scan position for obtaining a desired scan plane of a target anatomical structure), comprising:
at a computer system (Paragraph [0012]; a medical diagnostic system (MDS) 100) that includes one or more processors and memory (Paragraph [0012]; includes a controller (e.g., controller circuit) 102… and a memory 106):
obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation (Paragraph [0050]; The method proceeds to 211 to initialize the algorithms and models according to a selected scan protocol. A scan protocol may include a list of the images and measurements that should be acquired during a specified ultrasound examination (e.g., procedure). The list of images may include specified scan planes at certain organs or anatomical landmarks);
acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject (Paragraph [0060]; the method continues to 234 to store the identified image and set the scan protocol to the next target plane… The controller may then set the next target scan plane in the scan protocol and return to the method at 211 in FIG. 2A, as described above. In this way, method 200 may repeat; Paragraph [0028]; The images and/or image data may be classified by scan plane of an anatomical structure and/or by anatomical landmark/structure such that a target or desired scan plane or anatomical structure is identified by the controller) in the predefined order via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0060]; The controller may then set the next target scan plane in the scan protocol and return to the method at 211), wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks (Paragraph [0050]; For example, the list may include a particular plane (e.g., scan plane) within the organ or anatomical feature that contains the desired view. Each protocol may include a plurality of these desired views or images and corresponding measurements to be taken. Each item in the scan protocol may utilize individual models and algorithms (e.g., first item head, second item heart).); and
controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0050]; before starting a scan protocol item, the method at 211 may include selecting the appropriate models and algorithms (e.g., the models and algorithms that correspond to the anatomical part to be scanned in the scan protocol item) for the next scan protocol item; Paragraph [0031]; ultrasound probe 126 may be configured to acquire ultrasound data or information from the anatomical structures (e.g., organ, blood vessel, heart) of the patient based on the predetermined settings.; Paragraph [0037]; The RF processor 132 may generate different ultrasound image data types… different scanning patterns based on the predetermined settings of the first model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa to have further included obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation; acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject in the predefined order via the ultrasound device, wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks as taught by Perrey because it would have allowed automatically detecting target scan planes of anatomical structures, thereby producing desired image views that increase the accuracy of medical diagnosis based on the selected images (Paragraph [0010]) and further improved the efficiency of diagnosis over multiple structures.
Regarding claim 18, Srinivasa teaches a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Paragraph [0049]; local memory 229… local memory 229, which can include any suitable type of non-volatile memory), storing a computer program (Paragraph [0046]; settings prediction engine 227, which may be embodied in any suitable combination of software), the computer program, when executed by one or more processors (Paragraphs [0040], [0043], and [0045]; signal processor 222, image data processor 223; controller 224; the processor 223 may include a display processor 234, Fig. 2) of a computer system (Paragraph [0038]-[0040]; ultrasound system base 230 including processor 223, Fig. 2), cause the one or more processors to perform operations (Paragraph [0046]; functionality of engine 227 may be implemented via processor-executable instructions 225, which when executed by processor 223 configure or program the processor to perform the functions associated with generating predicted settings) comprising:
obtaining a first ultrasound image of a living subject (Paragraph [0051]; received image 304… type of biological tissue represented in the ultrasound image 304, Fig. 3) and a respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0054]; the processor 300 may be configured to retrieve the selected tissue specific preset (TSP) 312 from memory 318 (e.g., local memory of the ultrasound scanner); receive an input vector having a dimension n+i, where n corresponds to the number of settings defined by the TSP 312, Fig. 3) via an ultrasound device (Paragraph [0030]; ultrasound scanner 101-j, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0050]; as input, an ultrasound image 304, which may be coupled to processor 300 in real-time (e.g., during live imaging));
processing the first ultrasound image of the living subject to obtain one or more attributes of the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0051]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304… classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications; tissue type 315, Fig. 3);
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the first ultrasound image of the living subject meet first criteria (Paragraph [0052]; determined by the processor, based upon training, to be suitable for imaging that type of tissue) comprising a determination that a first set of anatomical landmarks has been detected in the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0028]-[0029] and [0051]-[0052]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304; classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications, Fig. 3; The determination of an organ or tissue type is considered to read on the claimed limitation of a first set of anatomical landmarks as understood in its broadest reasonable interpretation), and without user intervention (Paragraph [0052]; which may then be automatically applied to reconfigure the ultrasound imaging system… As the processor 300 performs tissue type identification and settings prediction in the background, the need for operator involvement in setting the appropriate imaging parameters may be obviated), presenting (Paragraph [0045]; present annotations along with the image data, such as annotations identifying the preset selected, any adjustments made to the preset such as by highlighting those imaging parameters that were tuned by the artificial neural network), via a user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0035]; a user interface 236 including a display 238), a first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0052]; configured to output a set of imaging parameters… output one or more predicted settings 314, Fig. 3), different from the respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0052]; determines that a different set of imaging parameter settings should be applied rather than the selected settings), for acquiring a second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0031]; the tissue-specific preset selected based on the identified type of tissue is automatically applied to adjust the imaging parameter settings of the ultrasound scanner 101-j for subsequent live imaging (at block 116), Fig. 1); and
controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0031]; subsequent live imaging (e.g., acquisition and display of image data) by the ultrasound scanner 101-j (at block 116) occurs using the automatically reconfigured imaging settings).
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation; acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject in the predefined order via the ultrasound device, wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks.
Perry, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0003]; a method comprises outputting to a user, instructions for navigating a medical imaging probe from a current scan position to a next scan position for obtaining a desired scan plane of a target anatomical structure), comprising:
at a computer system (Paragraph [0012]; a medical diagnostic system (MDS) 100) that includes one or more processors and memory (Paragraph [0012]; includes a controller (e.g., controller circuit) 102… and a memory 106):
obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation (Paragraph [0050]; The method proceeds to 211 to initialize the algorithms and models according to a selected scan protocol. A scan protocol may include a list of the images and measurements that should be acquired during a specified ultrasound examination (e.g., procedure). The list of images may include specified scan planes at certain organs or anatomical landmarks);
acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject (Paragraph [0060]; the method continues to 234 to store the identified image and set the scan protocol to the next target plane… The controller may then set the next target scan plane in the scan protocol and return to the method at 211 in FIG. 2A, as described above. In this way, method 200 may repeat; Paragraph [0028]; The images and/or image data may be classified by scan plane of an anatomical structure and/or by anatomical landmark/structure such that a target or desired scan plane or anatomical structure is identified by the controller) in the predefined order via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0060]; The controller may then set the next target scan plane in the scan protocol and return to the method at 211), wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks (Paragraph [0050]; For example, the list may include a particular plane (e.g., scan plane) within the organ or anatomical feature that contains the desired view. Each protocol may include a plurality of these desired views or images and corresponding measurements to be taken. Each item in the scan protocol may utilize individual models and algorithms (e.g., first item head, second item heart).); and
controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0050]; before starting a scan protocol item, the method at 211 may include selecting the appropriate models and algorithms (e.g., the models and algorithms that correspond to the anatomical part to be scanned in the scan protocol item) for the next scan protocol item; Paragraph [0031]; ultrasound probe 126 may be configured to acquire ultrasound data or information from the anatomical structures (e.g., organ, blood vessel, heart) of the patient based on the predetermined settings.; Paragraph [0037]; The RF processor 132 may generate different ultrasound image data types… different scanning patterns based on the predetermined settings of the first model).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa to have further included obtaining a predefined order for an ultrasound evaluation; acquiring a second ultrasound image of a next anatomy of the living subject in the predefined order via the ultrasound device, wherein the next anatomy does not include the first set of anatomical landmarks as taught by Perrey because it would have allowed automatically detecting target scan planes of anatomical structures, thereby producing desired image views that increase the accuracy of medical diagnosis based on the selected images (Paragraph [0010]) and further improved the efficiency of diagnosis over multiple structures.
Claims 2, 17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey as applied to claims 1, 16, and 18 above, respectively, and further in view of Tsymbalenko (US 20210121158).
Regarding claim 2, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device, wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters includes:
in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended preset operational parameters.
Tsymbalenko, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0003]; method includes operating an ultrasound imaging system) comprising presenting, via a user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0019]; display device 118, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0062]; FIG. 4 additionally shows GUI 402 including a list of imaging parameters 404 and color reference 403), a first set of recommended parameters (Paragraph [0064]; a result of the recommended imaging parameters generated by the ultrasound imaging system, FIG. 5), different from the respective set of control parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0064]; Fig. 5 shows the adjusted parameters which are different from the imaging parameters), for acquiring a second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0064]; The ultrasound image 500 is generated by the ultrasound imaging system using the recommended imaging parameter values, Fig. 5);
further comprising detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0065]; The operator may input a selection to the notification area 508 in order to accept the recommended imaging parameter values), wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended parameters includes:
in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended parameters (Paragraph [0065]; replace default imaging parameter values with the recommended imaging parameter values by selecting the confirm button 510, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa and Perrey to have included the step of detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device, wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended parameters, and in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended parameters as taught by Tsymbalenko because it would have allowed the operator choose whether to confirm or reject changes to the settings during an ongoing imaging session, thereby allowing preventing disruption to the ongoing imaging session if the current settings for imaging is already deemed sufficient and thereby continue with the current imaging values (Tsymbalenko, Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 17, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 16 as noted above.
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach the memory stores instructions for performing:
detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device, wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters includes:
in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended preset operational parameters.
Tsymbalenko, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0003]; method includes operating an ultrasound imaging system) comprising presenting, via a user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0019]; display device 118, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0062]; FIG. 4 additionally shows GUI 402 including a list of imaging parameters 404 and color reference 403), a first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0064]; a result of the recommended imaging parameters generated by the ultrasound imaging system, FIG. 5), different from the respective set of preset operational parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0064]; Fig. 5 shows the adjusted parameters which are different from the imaging parameters), for acquiring a second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0064]; The ultrasound image 500 is generated by the ultrasound imaging system using the recommended imaging parameter values, Fig. 5);
further comprising detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0065]; The operator may input a selection to the notification area 508 in order to accept the recommended imaging parameter values), wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters includes:
in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended preset operational parameters (Paragraph [0065]; replace default imaging parameter values with the recommended imaging parameter values by selecting the confirm button 510, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the memory of Srinivasa in view of Perrey to have included the step of detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device, wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended preset operational parameters, and in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended preset operational parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended preset operational parameters as taught by Tsymbalenko because it would have allowed the operator choose whether to confirm or reject changes to the settings during an ongoing imaging session, thereby allowing preventing disruption to the ongoing imaging session if the current settings for imaging is already deemed sufficient and thereby continue with the current imaging values (Tsymbalenko, Paragraph [0065]).
Regarding claim 19, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 18 as noted above.
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach the computer program, when executed by the one or more processors of the computer system, performs operations including:
detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device, wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended parameters includes:
in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended parameters.
Tsymbalenko, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0003]; method includes operating an ultrasound imaging system) comprising presenting, via a user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0019]; display device 118, Fig. 1; Paragraph [0062]; FIG. 4 additionally shows GUI 402 including a list of imaging parameters 404 and color reference 403), a first set of recommended parameters (Paragraph [0064]; a result of the recommended imaging parameters generated by the ultrasound imaging system, FIG. 5), different from the respective set of control parameters used to acquire the first ultrasound image (Paragraph [0064]; Fig. 5 shows the adjusted parameters which are different from the imaging parameters), for acquiring a second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0064]; The ultrasound image 500 is generated by the ultrasound imaging system using the recommended imaging parameter values, Fig. 5);
further comprising detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0065]; The operator may input a selection to the notification area 508 in order to accept the recommended imaging parameter values), wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended parameters includes:
in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended parameters (Paragraph [0065]; replace default imaging parameter values with the recommended imaging parameter values by selecting the confirm button 510, Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the computer program of Srinivasa in view of Perrey to have included the step of detecting a user selection of the first set of recommended parameters for acquiring the second ultrasound image of the living subject via the ultrasound device, wherein controlling the ultrasound device to acquire the second ultrasound image of the living subject using the first set of recommended parameters, and in response to detecting the user selection of the first set of recommended parameters, modifying operation of the ultrasound device in accordance with the first set of recommended parameters as taught by Tsymbalenko because it would have allowed the operator choose whether to confirm or reject changes to the settings during an ongoing imaging session, thereby allowing preventing disruption to the ongoing imaging session if the current settings for imaging is already deemed sufficient and thereby continue with the current imaging values (Tsymbalenko, Paragraph [0065]).
Claims 8 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Meral (US 20230026942).
Regarding claim 8, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa does not explicitly teach performing a first automated measurement on a first set of ultrasound images that includes the second ultrasound image; and
presenting, via the user interface of the computer system, a result of the first automated measurement.
Meral, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0005]; techniques for automated anatomical feature measurements from ultrasound images) comprising: performing a first automated measurement (Paragraph [0039]; FIGS. 2-6 collectively illustrate mechanisms for automated measurements from ultrasound images) on a first set of ultrasound images that includes the second ultrasound image (Paragraph [0035]; In some aspects, the system 100 can capture a sequence of ultrasound images of the object 105); and
presenting, via the user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0034]; display 132, Fig. 1), a result of the first automated measurement (Paragraph [0082]; where the imaging plane 922 chosen by the deep learning network and the measurement 924 made by the deep learning network on the imaging plane 922 are displayed to the user).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey to further include performing a first automated measurement on a first set of ultrasound images that includes the second ultrasound image; and presenting, via the user interface of the computer system, a result of the first automated measurement as taught by Meral. This would have assisted the sonographer in determining sizes of the anatomy of interest, such as the fetal head, for which determining accurate and precise measurements are important to determine fetal growth (Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 10, together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Meral teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as noted above.
Meral further teaches presenting, via the user interface of the computer system, the result of the first automated measurement includes presenting the result of the first automated measurement during a scan in which the first set of ultrasound images are acquired via the ultrasound device (Paragraphs [0090]-[0094]; the method 1100 includes receiving, using an ultrasound transducer array, a set of images; obtaining first measurement data of the anatomical feature in a first image of the set of images; generating second measurement data for the anatomical feature by propagating the first measurement data from the first image; outputting, to a display the second measurement data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Meral to have included presenting the result of the first automated measurement during a scan in which the first set of ultrasound images are acquired via the ultrasound device because it would have allowed measurement of the anatomy of interest and improved the sonographer’s ability to accurately measure anatomical features of the object (Meral, Paragraph [0035]).
Regarding claim 11, together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Meral teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as noted above.
Meral further teaches including providing, in accordance with the first automated measurement, visual guidance to a user for obtaining the first set of ultrasound images (Paragraph [0049]; marker placement component 250 may place measurement markers or calipers on an image where measurements may be made; a sonographer performing the scan may determine the locations where the markers may be placed for measurements; Figs. 2 and 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Meral to have included providing, in accordance with the first automated measurement, visual guidance to a user for obtaining the first set of ultrasound images as taught by Meral. This would have allowed the operator to see where the measurement data is taken with respect to the target anatomy and thus determine the correct type of measurement is made for the anatomy of interest, thereby allow the operator to adjust for proper measurement (Meral, Paragraphs [0049]-[0051]).
Regarding claim 12, together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Meral teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as noted above.
Meral further teaches the first automated measurement is based at least in part on measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) on the ultrasound device (Paragraph [0036]; the probe 110 may include an inertial measurement tracker; Paragraph [0096]; determining the positional data of the ultrasound transducer array with respect to the first image and the one or more images based on the inertial measurement data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Meral such that the first automated measurement is based at least in part on measurements from an inertial measurement unit (IMU) on the ultrasound device as taught by Meral because it would allow tracking of the probe during the scan (Meral, Paragraph [0036]) and further reduced noise and improved volume reconstruction of object (Meral, Paragraphs [0042]-[0044]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Meral as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Carrascal (US 20220249061).
Regarding claim 9, together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Meral teach all of the limitations of claim 8 as noted above.
Together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Meral do not teach providing, via the user interface of the computer system, a recommendation to perform the first automated measurement; and
wherein performance of the first automated measurement is performed in response to user selection of the recommendation to perform the automated measurement.
Carrascal, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0001]; method for assisting a user in performing ultrasound shear wave electrography) comprising providing, via the user interface of the computer system, a recommendation to perform the first automated measurement (Paragraph [0116]; acoustic imaging system 100 can suggest an ROI location to a user while operating in B-mode; Fig. 17, suggested ROI 114); and
wherein performance of the first automated measurement is performed in response to user selection of the recommendation to perform the automated measurement (Paragraph [0116]; by clicking a button, touching an area of display device 116, voice command, etc. then acoustic imaging system 100 can automatically position the ROI in that location, ready to make an elasticity measurement).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Meral to have further included providing, via the user interface of the computer system, a recommendation to perform the first automated measurement; and wherein performance of the first automated measurement is performed in response to user selection of the recommendation to perform the automated measurement as taught by Carrascal because it would allow more easily determining the areas which need to be measured and provide a real-time visual feedback about the ROI which would have improved the user’s ability to making appropriate measurements (Carrascal, Paragraphs [0112]-[0114]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (US 11096667) and Iwaki (US 20190069757).
Regarding claim 13, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa further teaches during a scan of the living subject using the ultrasound device:
detecting a target anatomical structure in a currently acquired ultrasound image (Paragraph [0051]-[0052]; anatomy classifier 310 configured to identify the type of biological tissue represented in the received image 304… classify an input ultrasound image into one or a plurality of possible tissue or organ classifications; tissue type 315, Fig. 3).
Srinivasa does not teach in response to detecting the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image:
in accordance with a determination that one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets second criteria, and that the target anatomical structure did not meet the second criteria in an ultrasound image acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image, displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image with an indication of a contour of the target anatomical structure; and
in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets the second criteria, and that the indication of the contour for the target anatomical structure has been displayed in the more than a threshold number of ultrasound images acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image, displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image without the indication of the contour of the anatomical structure.
Park, however, teaches a method (Col. 1, Ln. 43-47; methods of controlling the ultrasound imaging apparatuses capable of detecting a region having features similar to those of a region of interest set) comprising: in response to detecting the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image (Col. 15, Ln 40-49; detect at least one region, in which feature information similar to that of the region of interest 1040a):
in accordance with a determination that one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets second criteria (Col. 17, Ln. 3-11; in which the feature information similar to that of the region of interest 1240a or 1240b is obtained), and that the target anatomical structure did not meet the second criteria in an ultrasound image acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image (Col. 5, Ln. 24-30; The display 140 may display a generated ultrasound image, the contrast-enhanced image and various pieces of information processed by the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus; Col. 10, Ln. 20-23; the contrast-enhanced image or the ultrasound image that are registered and displayed; The display show generated images before detection of the detected region, as shown in Fig. 8A, when setting parameters for the region, which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of the target anatomical structure did not meet the second criteria in an ultrasound image acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image as interpreted in its broadest reasonable interpretation), displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image with an indication of a contour of the target anatomical structure (Col. 17, Ln. 3-11; the ultrasound imaging apparatus 300 may segment the detected region of the contrast-enhanced image 1210a and the ultrasound image 1220b; Col. 18, ln. 16-21; ultrasound imaging apparatus 300 may display contour lines 1540a and 1540b of the at least one region, Fig. 15).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey such that in response to detecting the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image: in accordance with a determination that one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets second criteria, and that the target anatomical structure did not meet the second criteria in an ultrasound image acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image, displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image with an indication of a contour of the target anatomical structure as taught by Park. This would have allowed the operator to more easily identify the structure in the image which may not be easily detected with the naked eye when the settings for collection of the ultrasound image are properly set (Park, Col. 18, Ln. 22-30).
Together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Park further fail to teach in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets the second criteria, and that the indication of the contour for the target anatomical structure has been displayed in the more than a threshold number of ultrasound images acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image, displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image without the indication of the contour of the anatomical structure.
Iwaki, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0004]; performing detecting a region-of-interest from sequentially inputted observation images of a subject) comprising, in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets the second criteria (Paragraph [0084]; First, the marker image G2 is not displayed until the first period elapses after the first detection of the lesion candidate region L; Fig. 7), and that the indication of the contour for the target anatomical structure has been displayed in the more than a threshold number of ultrasound images acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image (Paragraph [0084]; Next, when the lesion candidate region L is detected continuously even after the elapse of the second period, the enhancement processing is ended, Fig. 7; Paragraph [0039]; second period is a predetermined time, the second period is defined as 45 frames), displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image without the indication of the contour of the anatomical structure (Paragraph [0084]; the enhancement processing is ended… the marker image G2 is brought into the non-display state; The marker surrounding the target lesion is removed after a set second period, which is considered to read on the claimed limitation of displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image without the indication of the contour of the anatomical structure in its broadest reasonable interpretation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have further modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Park such that in accordance with a determination that the one or more attributes of the target anatomical structure in the currently acquired ultrasound image meets the second criteria, and that the indication of the contour for the target anatomical structure has been displayed in the more than a threshold number of ultrasound images acquired immediately before the currently acquired ultrasound image, displaying the currently acquired ultrasound image without the indication of the contour of the anatomical structure, as taught by Iwaki. This would have allowed the operator to initially see the lesion then more clearly examine the region of interest without extra markings in the operator’s vision to thereby improve the diagnosis, and suppresses the decline of the operator's attentiveness to the observation image (Iwaki, Paragraph [0085]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Carrascal (US 20220249061).
Regarding claim 14, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Srinivasa does not teach concurrently displaying in the user interface of the computer system:
respective representations of two or more ultrasound images acquired in sequence during a single scan;
a representative image selected from the two or more ultrasound images in accordance with automated measurements performed on the two or more ultrasound images; and
a result of automated measurement performed on the representative image.
Carrascal, however, teaches a method comprising concurrently displaying in the user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0001]; method for assisting a user in performing ultrasound shear wave electrography):
respective representations of two or more ultrasound images acquired in sequence during a single scan (Paragraph [0090]; cineloop comprised of SWEI frames produced from shear wave elasticity images obtained during a user's scan of tissue of interest with acoustic probe, Fig. 10A-C);
a representative image selected from the two or more ultrasound images in accordance with automated measurements performed on the two or more ultrasound images (Paragraph [0090]; highlighting the best SWEI frame); and
a result of automated measurement performed on the representative image (Paragraphs [0090]-[0091]; a SWEI frame with an optimal stiffness map).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey to have further included concurrently displaying in the user interface of the computer system: respective representations of two or more ultrasound images acquired in sequence during a single scan; a representative image selected from the two or more ultrasound images in accordance with automated measurements performed on the two or more ultrasound images; and a result of automated measurement performed on the representative image as taught by Carrascal. This would have allowed the operator to have selected the best location or performing elasticity or stiffness measurements and reduced the time of the operation by more quickly suggesting the ROI (Carrascal, paragraph [0091]).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Carrascal as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Lundberg (US 20180021022).
Regarding claim 15, together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Carrascal teach all of the limitations of claim 14 as noted above.
Carrascal further teaches display of the result of the automated measurement for the representative image with a result of automated measurement (Paragraph [0091]; best SWEI frame for selecting a ROI and performing an elasticity or stiffness measurement in the selected ROI).
Together Srinivasa, Perrey, and Carrascal do not teach receiving user selection of a different ultrasound image from the respective representations of the two or more ultrasound images as a new representative image for the two or more ultrasound images;
in response to receiving the user selection of the different ultrasound image from the respective representations of the two or more ultrasound images as the new representative image for the two or more ultrasound images:
replacing display of the representative image with display of the new representative image in the user interface of the computer system; and
replacing display of the result of the automated measurement for the representative image with a result of automated measurement for the new representative image in the user interface of the computer system.
Lundberg, however, teaches a method (Paragraph [0008]; methods of selecting image frames from a cine buffer) comprising receiving user selection of a different ultrasound image from the respective representations of the two or more ultrasound images as a new representative image for the two or more ultrasound images (Paragraph [0018]; operator can select an image frame that may show a desired view or measurement in a way that is better or more clear than is shown in the image frame 150c that was selected by the system processor 116);
in response to receiving the user selection of the different ultrasound image from the respective representations of the two or more ultrasound images as the new representative image for the two or more ultrasound images:
replacing display of the representative image with display of the new representative image in the user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0023]; Those image frames that bear the closest resemblance to the previously selected image frames can be presented to the operator); and
replacing display of the result of the automated measurement for the representative image with a result of automated measurement for the new representative image in the user interface of the computer system (Paragraph [0023]; determine which images require measurements to be taken and cause the processor to display a graphic representing a caliper or other measurement tool on the images. The placement of the caliper graphic can be based on an image recognition of the anatomical features contained in the images).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey and Carrascal to have further included receiving user selection of a different ultrasound image from the respective representations of the two or more ultrasound images as a new representative image for the two or more ultrasound images;
in response to receiving the user selection of the different ultrasound image from the respective representations of the two or more ultrasound images as the new representative image for the two or more ultrasound images: replacing display of the respective image of the two or more ultrasound images with display of the new representative image in the user interface of the computer system; and
replacing display of the result of the automated measurement for the representative image with a result of automated measurement for the new representative image in the user interface of the computer system as taught by Lundberg. This would have allowed the system to more quickly determine areas that the user would like measured and provide the measured areas without further user input and thus reduce the total imaging and diagnosis time, thus improving the overall imaging procedure (Lundberg, Paragraph [0025]).
Claim 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Srinivasa in view of Perrey as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shin (US 20220338842).
Regarding claim 20, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Together Srinivasa and Perrey do not explicitly teach the first set of anatomical landmarks is obtained by a geometrical analysis of one or more segmentation masks.
Shin, however, teaches the first set of anatomical landmarks is obtained by a geometrical analysis of one or more segmentation masks (Paragraph [0053]; the processing device may determine the presence or absence of landmarks based on segmentation masks… using heuristics may include determining whether the number of pixels determined to be within the landmark in the segmentation mask (“segmented pixels”) is greater than a threshold number and/or analyzing various other relationships between the segmented pixels, such as how continuous they are (e.g., using connected components analysis)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey such that the first set of anatomical landmarks is obtained by a geometrical analysis of one or more segmentation masks as taught by Shin because it would have been a known and understood method for determining landmarks that further would have allowed determining the location of multiple landmarks within an ultrasound image (Paragraph [0052]).
Regarding claim 21, together Srinivasa and Perrey teach all of the limitations of claim 1 as noted above.
Together Srinivasa and Perrey do not explicitly teach the first set of anatomical landmarks is provided to a statistical shape model to determine if the first ultrasound image contains sufficient anatomical information to provide a clinical decision.
Shin, however, teaches the first set of anatomical landmarks is provided to a statistical shape model (Paragraph [0052]; the processing device may use a statistical model to determine the presence or absence of landmarks; Paragraph [0064]; statistical model may be trained to determine the locations for the segmented portions in ultrasound images. For example, a statistical model may be trained to determine the locations of particular landmarks (e.g., ribs, the pleural line, and A lines) as depicted in ultrasound images) to determine if the first ultrasound image contains sufficient anatomical information to provide a clinical decision (Paragraph [0078]; statistical models generating the segmented landmark 204-207 and the labels 208-211, any statistical models computing a quality of the ultrasound images for display by the quality indicators 212 and 214, the reference ultrasound image 402; Paragraph [0050]; determines at act 106 that the quality of the ultrasound image is less than the threshold quality… such as an anatomical region or structure, that when present in an ultrasound image, may be viewed as an indication that the ultrasound image is clinically usable).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the method of Srinivasa in view of Perrey such that the first set of anatomical landmarks is provided to a statistical shape model to determine if the first ultrasound image contains sufficient anatomical information to provide a clinical decision as taught by Shin because it would have been a known and understood method of determining whether the anatomical landmarks are detected in images and further would have further allowed determining the quality of the images that can be displayed an help the operator determine when an image has a higher or lower quality and thus help the user collect a clinically usable ultrasound image (Paragraph [0069] and [0072]).
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections under – 35 U.S.C. § 103
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the previous 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections have been considered but are moot in view of the updated grounds of rejection necessitated by amendments.
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 Dean N Edun whose telephone number is (571)270-3745. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5:30pm.
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, Anh Tuan Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DEAN N EDUN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795
06/15/26
Prosecution Insights