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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/29/2026 with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
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, 6, 11-12, 18, 20-21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim [US 20140235998 A1] in view of Wang [US 20030007598 A1].
As per claim 1, Kim teaches an ultrasound system (Kim Fig 1) comprising:
an ultrasound probe (Kim Fig 1 item 121),
a processor configured to generate two-dimensional ultrasound images of a plurality of frames, in which a region of interest (Kim Fig 1 item 120, ¶0053 “ultrasonography machine for generating a real-time medical image”) by performing transmission and reception of an ultrasound beam with respect to the subject using the ultrasound probe (Kim ¶0053 “detects a reflected ultrasonic wave signal to generate an ultrasonic wave image”);
generate a volume rendering image including the region of interest based on the two- dimensional ultrasound images of the plurality of frames (Kim ¶0057 “generate a three-dimensional (3D) medical image by accumulating the 2D sectional images…by accumulating sectional images is referred to as a multiplanar reconstruction (MPR) method”)..
select a representative two-dimensional ultrasound image among the two-dimensional ultrasound images of the plurality of frames (Kim Fig 3 step s315 “selects a 2D medical image corresponding to the first cross-sectional image from among a plurality of 2D medical images”),
the representative two-dimensional ultrasound image containing the region of interest (Kim Fig 3 step 315 selects image from 3D medical image of ROI): and
link the volume rendering image to reference information including first identification information of a radiation image where the region of interest is imaged (Kim ¶0058 “By performing registration, the medical image registration apparatus 130 is able to establish a correspondence between the first medical image and the second medical …Figs 4-5 linking 3D image with coordinate system for radiation apparatus” ¶0059 “the coordinate values are inherent to capturing each image” the coordinate values correspond to the claimed identification information),
and second identification information of the representative two-dimensional ultrasound image (Kim ¶0058 “By performing registration, the medical image registration apparatus 130 is able to establish a correspondence between the first medical image and the second medical …Fig 3 linking 3D image with coordinate system for ultrasound” ¶0059 “the coordinate values are inherent to capturing each image” the coordinate values correspond to the claimed identification information).
Kim does not expressly teach generating images from inside a breast.
Wang in a related field of breast cancer screening teaches generating images from inside a breast (Wang Fig 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Kim for use in breast scanning so that mammograms and US images can be generated for breast cancer screening.
As per claim 6, Kim in view of Wang further teaches comprising: an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Kim Fig 1 item 120); and a server connected to the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Kim Fig 1 item 130, Wang ¶0037 ultrasound server), wherein the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus includes the ultrasound probe and the processor (Kim Fig 1 items 121/120), and the processor is configured to transmit the volume rendering image linked to the reference information, to the server (Kim Steps 3-5, 3D image sent to 130 for registration steps).
As per claims 11, Kim in view of Wang further teaches a viewer connected to the server, wherein the viewer includes an input device through which a user performs an input operation, and a monitor configured to display the radiation image in which the region of interest is images or the representative two-dimensional ultrasound image (Kim Fig 1 item 140, ¶0133), and in a case where the region of interest in the radiation image or the representative two-dimensional ultrasound image displayed on the monitor is designated by the user via the input device, the volume rendering image including the region of interest is displayed on the monitor (Kim ¶0133 images will be displayed on screen with some input / programming).
As per claim 12, Kim in view of Wang further teaches wherein in a case where the region of interest in the radiation image or the representative two-dimensional ultrasound image displayed on the monitor is designated by the user via the input device, the radiation image or the representative two-dimensional ultrasound image and the volume rendering image in each of which the region of interest is imaged are displayed on the monitor (See Wang Fig 22, items 2202, 2206. Further, the apparatus in Wang has structure for performing the claimed functions, in case the selection is made).
As per claim 18, Kim in view of Wang further teaches an image memory configured to store the volume rendering image (Wang ¶0192, ¶0037 “…storing the adjunctive ultrasound data on an adjunctive ultrasound server”).
As per claim 20, it has limitation similar to claim 1 and is rejected over Kim in view of Wang for same reasons as above.
Claim 21 recites limitations similar to claim 11 and is rejected over Kim in view of Wang as discussed above.
Claims 2-5, 7-10, 19 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang as applied to claims 1, 18 above, and further in view of Esham [US 20060242143 A1].
As per claims 2, 4, 19, Kim in view of Wang teaches claims 1, 18 as discussed above. Wang does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to store the first identification information in a tag of the volume rendering image.
Esham, in a related field of multi imaging modality, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to store the identification information of the radiation image or another two-dimensional ultrasound image in which the region of interest is imaged, as the reference information in a tag of the volume rendering image (Esham ¶0010 “Image reading system 42 associates related images of a particular patient derived from multiple different modality imaging devices such as MR, CT, X-ray, Ultrasound, etc. … Image reading system 42 employs user interface system 40 including a configuration processor enabling a user to assign tags (e.g., values or identifiers) to images at the time of image acquisition or afterwards.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Kim in view of Wang, by assigning data items (e.g., tags) to images, as in Esham. The motivation would be to allow a user to select a series of medical images derived from one or more different imaging modalities and automatically correlates and identifies images for viewing (Esham ¶0010).
As per claim 3, Kim in view of Wang and Esham further teaches wherein the radiation image includes two radiation images obtained by imaging the region of interest from two different directions (Wang ¶0096 “x-ray mammogram 120 represents the craniocaudal (CC) x-ray view”, “the x-ray mammogram 122 represents the mediolateral oblique (MLO) x-ray view”), and the processor is further configured to store the first identification information of each of the two radiation images, as the reference information in the tag of the volume rendering image (Esham ¶0010).
As per claim 5, Kim in view of Wang and Esham further teaches wherein the other two-dimensional ultrasound image includes two two-dimensional ultrasound images obtained by imaging two tomographic planes orthogonal to each other for the region of interest (Wang ¶0037 “In one preferred embodiment in which the raw ultrasound slices are acquired in planes parallel or nearly parallel to the desired standard x-ray mammogram view plane, … In another preferred embodiment in which the raw ultrasound slices are acquired in planes perpendicular or substantially non-parallel to the desired standard x-ray mammogram view plane,” The claimed limitations are only directed to using two images generated as described), and the processor is further configured to store identification information of each of the two two-dimensional ultrasound images, as the first information in the tag of the volume rendering image (Esham ¶0010).
Claims 7-10 has limitations taught by Kim in view of Wang as discussed with respect to claim 6 above and, hence is rejected over Kim in view of Wang and Esham.
Claim 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Burdette [US 6512942 B1].
As per claim 13, Kim in view of Wang does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate the volume rendering image using surface rendering.
Burdette, in a related field of virtual reality visualization of the treatment area, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the volume rendering image using surface rendering (Burdette Col 5 lines 48-53 “Once a set of two- dimensional contours has been defined, … This results in a surface rendering of the volume bounded by the contours”. Col 12 lines 17-20 “The three- dimensional translucent image is then created by computing the translucent two- dimensional image over the entire image volume and summing the z-pixels.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Kim in view of Wang by using a volume rendering method as in Burdette. The motivation would be to provide real time visualization with greater accuracy in shorter time (Burdette Col 13).
Claims 14-17 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim in view of Wang and Esham as applied to claims 2-5 above, and further in view of Burdette.
As per claims 14-17, Kim in view of Wang and Esham does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to generate the volume rendering image using surface rendering.
Burdette, in a related field of virtual reality visualization of the treatment area, teaches wherein the processor is further configured to generate the volume rendering image using surface rendering (Burdette Col 5 lines 48-53 “Once a set of two- dimensional contours has been defined, … This results in a surface rendering of the volume bounded by the contours”. Col 12 lines 17-20 “The three- dimensional translucent image is then created by computing the translucent two- dimensional image over the entire image volume and summing the z-pixels.”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Kim in view of Wang and Esham by using a volume rendering method as in Burdette. The motivation would be to provide real time visualization with greater accuracy in shorter time (Burdette Col 13).
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 OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, 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.
/Oommen Jacob/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights