DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
2. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 9, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
4. The amendment filed October 9, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1-10 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome each and every 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Final Office Action mailed July 18, 2025.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed October 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
6. Applicant argues that Kuga et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2011078514 A), hereinafter referred to as Kuga, in view of Call et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2022/0071601 A1), hereinafter referred to as Call, does not disclose the amended limitation of “applying a smoothing filter comprising a plurality of three-dimensional pixels and having a weight set to each pixel.” Thus, Applicant argues that independent claims 1 and 6 and their dependents are allowable.
Examiner replies that the Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim(s) 1 and 6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Instead of Call, Tsujita (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0271455 A1) is used to teach the smoothing filter and setting a weight to each pixel.
Claims 1-10 stand rejected through Kuga in view of Tsujita.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
8. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
9. Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kuga et al. (Japanese Patent Application Publication No. 2011078514 A), hereinafter referred to as Kuga, in view of Tsujita (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0271455 A1 – cited in IDS).
10. Regarding claim 1, Kuga teaches an ultrasonic image processing device comprising one or more processors configured to (Paragraph 16 mentions an ultrasonic image generating device with a CPU and memory):
(Paragraph 45 mentions the ultrasound volume data is obtained by transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves to a fetus);
calculate change amount information indicating an amount of change between signal intensity of a target voxel and signal intensity of a neighboring voxel near the target voxel for each voxel forming (Paragraph 17 mentions a gradient value calculation unit using the ultrasound volume data and calculating a change in brightness between values as a gradient. The change in brightness can be considered a change in signal intensity; Paragraph 36 also mentions that a gradient input, which comes from the gradient value calculation unit, is the gradient of the intensity values in the ultrasound volume data);
calculate opacity of each voxel based on the change amount information regarding the voxel such that the opacity of the voxel is reduced with reduction in the amount of change in the signal intensity between the voxel and the neighboring voxel, the amount of change being indicated by the change amount information regarding the voxel (Paragraph 36 mentions a transfer function processing unit which adjusts the opacity depending on the gradient of the intensity value in the volume data; Paragraph 25 mentions the opacity coefficient becomes smaller when the gradient scalar data is smaller, indicating the opacity of the voxel is reduced when the gradient of the intensity is reduced);
perform volume rendering on the ultrasound volume data voxel, obtain pixel values, and form an ultrasonic image based on a plurality of pixel values for each line of sight (Paragraph 27-28 mentions a rendering processing unit which renders the volume data based on the adjusted opacity values from the transfer function processing unit, which also takes into account the signal intensities of the voxels. It also mentions rendering the image along the line of sight. It then generates an image which can be displayed).
However, Kuga fails to teach performing a smoothing process for reducing a gradient of signal intensity between each voxel and an adjacent voxel adjacent thereto, by applying a smoothing filter comprising a plurality of three-dimensional pixels and having a weight set to each pixel, and ultrasound volume data that underwent the smoothing process.
Tsujita teaches performing a smoothing process for reducing a gradient of signal intensity between each voxel and an adjacent voxel adjacent thereto, by applying a smoothing filter comprising a plurality of three-dimensional pixels and having a weight set to each pixel, and ultrasound volume data that underwent the smoothing process (Abstract teaches setting a weight to each voxel in order to perform filter processing. The filter processing options include a smoothing filter; Paragraph 4 teaches the smoothing filter reduces noise which teaches reducing a gradient of signal intensity; Paragraphs 52-53 and Figure 2 teach applying a three-dimensional smoothing unit 201, or smoothing filter, which averages the volume data using the voxel values. Averaging the volume data using the surrounding voxel values reduces the gradient of signal intensity between each voxel and its adjacent voxels. Then the weighted addition unit 202 applies a weight to each voxel of the volume data and combines them to create the combined volume data which has underwent the smoothing process.).
Kuga and Tsujita are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of improving the quality of ultrasonic images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the ultrasonic processing device taught by Kuga with the smoothing process using weights taught by Tsujita in order to freely adjust the smoothing intensity applied to obtain an optimum image (Tsujita Paragraph 103).
11. Regarding claim 2, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kuga further teaches the ultrasonic image processing device wherein the one or more processors are further configured to calculate a correction parameter based on the amount of change for each voxel and correct the opacity of the voxel based on opacity predetermined for the voxel and the correction parameter (Paragraph 24-26 mention that the transfer function processing unit has a setting interface for adjusting the opacity. In the interface E2, there is an opacity coefficient which can be considered the correction parameter. The opacity coefficient affects the output of the ultrasound volume data which means it affects the opacity value of the voxel).
12. Regarding claim 3, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 2. Kuga further teaches the ultrasonic image processing device wherein: the correction parameter is calculated by normalizing the amount of change to a value between a predetermined minimum value and a predetermined maximum value (Paragraph 19 mentions calculating the normal distance of the gradient; Paragraph 24 mentions setting pointers on a graph with a vertical axis representing the gradient scalars, which is the normal distance, and the horizontal axis which represents the opacity value. The pointers represent a range which will have a maximum and minimum value for the gradient scalar, which is the normalized amount of change; Paragraph 25 mentions deciding the opacity coefficient based on the range set by the pointers);
and at least one of the maximum value and the minimum value is changeable in response to a user instruction (Paragraph 24 mentions the pointers which set the range can be moved in response to an instruction from the input device. Paragraph 20 mentions that the input device is a user interface which means any changes can be in response to a user instruction from that user interface).
13. Regarding claim 4, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kuga further teaches the ultrasonic image processing device wherein the neighboring voxel is a voxel not adjacent to the target voxel in the ultrasound volume data (Paragraph 17-18 mention calculating gradients in an area and shows an example equation 1. It does not require the gradient to be calculated between adjacent voxels but just in an area, which allows the voxel to be a neighboring voxel not adjacent to the target voxel).
14. Regarding claim 5, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 1. Kuga further teaches the ultrasonic image processing device wherein the ultrasound volume data are obtained by transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave to and from a fetus (Paragraph 45 mentions the volume data can be obtained from ultrasound beams to a fetus which includes transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves).
15. Regarding claim 6, Kuga teaches a computer-readable non-transitory storage medium storing a command executable by a computer, the command causing the computer to execute (Paragraph 16 mentions an ultrasonic image generating device with a program memory which stores programs for the CPU to execute):
(Paragraph 45 mentions the ultrasound volume data is obtained by transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves to a fetus);
a change amount information calculation step of calculating change amount information indicating an amount of change between signal intensity of a target voxel and signal intensity of a neighboring voxel near the target voxel for each voxel forming the ultrasound volume data (Paragraph 17 mentions a gradient value calculation unit using the ultrasound volume data and calculating a change in brightness between values as a gradient. The change in brightness can be considered a change in signal intensity; Paragraph 36 also mentions that a gradient input, which comes from the gradient value calculation unit, is the gradient of the intensity values in the ultrasound volume data);
an opacity calculation step of calculating opacity of each voxel based on the change amount information regarding the voxel such that the opacity of the voxel is reduced with reduction in the amount of change in the signal intensity between the voxel and the neighboring voxel, the amount of change being indicated by the change amount information regarding the voxel (Paragraph 36 mentions a transfer function processing unit which adjusts the opacity depending on the gradient of the intensity value in the volume data; Paragraph 25 mentions the opacity coefficient becomes smaller when the gradient scalar data is smaller, indicating the opacity of the voxel is reduced when the gradient of the intensity is reduced);
and a rendering processing step of performing volume rendering processing on the ultrasound volume data (Paragraph 27-28 mentions a rendering processing unit which renders the volume data based on the adjusted opacity values from the transfer function processing unit, which also takes into account the signal intensities of the voxels. It also mentions rendering along the line of sight. It then generates an image which can be displayed).
However, Kuga fails to teach a smoothing process performing step of performing a smoothing process for reducing a gradient of signal intensity between each voxel and an adjacent voxel adjacent thereto, by applying a smoothing filter comprising a plurality of three-dimensional pixels and having a weight set to each pixel,
Tsujita teaches performing a smoothing process for reducing a gradient of signal intensity between each voxel and an adjacent voxel adjacent thereto, by applying a smoothing filter comprising a plurality of three-dimensional pixels and having a weight set to each pixel, and ultrasound volume data that underwent the smoothing process (Abstract teaches setting a weight to each voxel in order to perform filter processing. The filter processing options include a smoothing filter; Paragraph 4 teaches the smoothing filter reduces noise which teaches reducing a gradient of signal intensity; Paragraphs 52-53 and Figure 2 teach applying a three-dimensional smoothing unit 201, or smoothing filter, which averages the volume data using the voxel values. Averaging the volume data using the surrounding voxel values reduces the gradient of signal intensity between each voxel and its adjacent voxels. Then the weighted addition unit 202 applies a weight to each voxel of the volume data and combines them to create the combined volume data which has underwent the smoothing process.).
Kuga and Tsujita are considered analogous to the claimed invention as because both are in the same field of improving the quality of ultrasonic images. Thus, it would have been obvious to a person holding ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the command for volume rendering processing on ultrasound volume data taught by Kuga with the smoothing process using weights taught by Tsujita in order to freely adjust the smoothing intensity applied to obtain an optimum image (Tsujita Paragraph 103).
16. Regarding claim 7, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 6. Claim 7 is similar in scope to claim 2. Therefore, similar rational as applied in the rejection of claim 2 applies herein.
17. Regarding claim 8, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 7. Claim 8 is similar in scope to claim 3. Therefore, similar rational as applied in the rejection of claim 3 applies herein.
18. Regarding claim 9, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 6. Claim 9 is similar in scope to claim 4. Therefore, similar rational as applied in the rejection of claim 4 applies herein.
19. Regarding claim 10, Kuga in view of Tsujita teaches the limitations of claim 6. Claim 10 is similar in scope to claim 5. Therefore, similar rational as applied in the rejection of claim 5 applies herein.
Conclusion
20. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE Y AHN whose telephone number is (571)272-0672. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5pm.
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, Alicia Harrington can be reached at (571)272-2330. 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.
/CHRISTINE YERA AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2615
/ALICIA M HARRINGTON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2615