DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-15, 17 and 19-23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim limitation “...wherein the image data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses identifying image frames that needs motion corrections or should be rejected (see par. [0042] and [0084] of the PG pub. version of the specification), however, the specification does not explicitly disclose that wherein the image data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur. The examiner notes that any negative limitation or exclusionary limitation must have basis in the original disclosure, and mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
Claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20 are rejected as they depend from rejected claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, the claim limitation “...wherein the ultrasound data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses identifying image frames that needs motion corrections or should be rejected (see par. [0042] and [0084] of the PG pub. version of the specification), however, the specification does not explicitly disclose that wherein the ultrasound data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur. The examiner notes that any negative limitation or exclusionary limitation must have basis in the original disclosure, and mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
Regarding claim 22, the claim limitation “...wherein the ultrasound data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses identifying image frames that needs motion corrections or should be rejected (see par. [0042] and [0084] of the PG pub. version of the specification), however, the specification does not explicitly disclose that wherein the ultrasound data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur. The examiner notes that any negative limitation or exclusionary limitation must have basis in the original disclosure, and mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
Regarding claim 23, the claim limitation “...wherein the ultrasound data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. The specification discloses identifying image frames that needs motion corrections or should be rejected (see par. [0042] and [0084] of the PG pub. version of the specification), however, the specification does not explicitly disclose that wherein the ultrasound data are not processed to reduce motion corruption when the determination indicates that motion did not occur. The examiner notes that any negative limitation or exclusionary limitation must have basis in the original disclosure, and mere absence of a positive recitation is not basis for an exclusion.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, pages 10-12, filed on 03/11/2026, with respect to prior art rejection have been fully considered, and upon further consideration and in view of Applicant’s amendments to independent claims, the previous prior art rejection has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M Kozak can be reached at (571)270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights