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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-15, 17, 19-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding claim 1, the claim 1 is directed to a method for generating an image that depicts microvessels in a subject. The examiner notes that claim limitations of generating by reformatting the image data as a Casorati matrix; generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformed data with every other column of the reformatted data; analyzing the motion matrix data and based on this analysis generating updated image data by processing the image data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicated motion occurred when the image data were acquired; and generating an image that depicts microvessels in the subject by reconstructing the image from the updated image data are directed to an abstract because the claim limitation can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the extra claim limitations of image data acquired from a subject with ultrasound system, wherein the image data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points are directed to extra solution activity and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of a generic computer components (“a computer system”) to execute the abstract ideas do not add significantly more than the abstract idea because since the one or more hardware processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the recited abstract ideas.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 1 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claims 2-15, 17, and 19-20, the dependent claims further limit limitations (i.e., identifying reference frame, identifying image frame having highest similarity metric with respect to other image frame, rejecting outlier frames that exceed a threshold value different from reference fame, generating spatiotemporal coherence map, etc.) that are directed to abstract ideas because the claim limitation can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper.
Regarding claim 21, the claim 21 is directed to a method for generating motion corrected Doppler ensemble data. The examiner notes that claim limitations of generating reformatted data reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix; generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data; processing the motion matrix to identify a reference frame; analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired; and generating motion corrected Doppler ensemble data based upon the updated ultrasound data are directed to an abstract because the claim limitation can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the extra claim limitations of image data acquired from a subject with ultrasound system, wherein the image data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points are directed to extra solution activity and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of a generic computer components (“a computer system”) to execute the abstract ideas do not add significantly more than the abstract idea because since the one or more hardware processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the recited abstract ideas.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 21 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 22, the claim 22 is directed to a method to generate a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced motion tracking accuracy and speed. The examiner notes that claim limitations of generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix; generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data; processing the motion matrix to identify a reference frame; analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data to process the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired; and generating a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced motion tracking accuracy and speed based upon the updated ultrasound data are directed to an abstract because the claim limitation can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the extra claim limitations of image data acquired from a subject with ultrasound system, wherein the image data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points are directed to extra solution activity and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of a generic computer components (“a computer system”) to execute the abstract ideas do not add significantly more than the abstract idea because since the one or more hardware processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the recited abstract ideas.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 22 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 23, the claim 23 is directed to a method to generate a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced similarity. The examiner notes that claim limitations of generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix; generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data; processing the motion matrix to identify a reference frame; analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired by removing image frames with a similarity metric below a threshold value; and generating a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced similarity based upon the updated ultrasound data are directed to an abstract because the claim limitation can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.”
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the extra claim limitations of image data acquired from a subject with ultrasound system, wherein the image data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points are directed to extra solution activity and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of a generic computer components (“a computer system”) to execute the abstract ideas do not add significantly more than the abstract idea because since the one or more hardware processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the recited abstract ideas.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 23 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
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 1-13, 15, 17, 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demene et al. (“ Spatiotemporal Clutter Filtering of Ultrafast Ultrasound Data Highly Increases Doppler and fUltrasound Sensitivity”; IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 34, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2015; hereinafter Demene), in view of Insana et al. (US 2019/0380684; hereinafter).
Regarding claim 1, Demene discloses a spatiotemporal clutter filtering of ultrafast ultrasound data. Demene shows method for generating an image that depicts microvessels in a subject using an ultrasound images using ultrasound system (see abstract, page 2277), the steps of the method comprising: (a) providing image data acquired from a subject (see abstract), wherein the image data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points (see abstract; fig. 3); (b) generating reformatted data with by reformatting the image data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); (c) generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); (d) analyzing the motion matrix data and based on this analysis generating updated image data by processing the image data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the image data were acquired (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5); and (e) generating an image that depicts microvessels in the subject by reconstructing the image from the updated image data (see abstract; fig. 2-3 and 5).
But, Demene fails to explicitly state providing a computer system.
Insana discloses an ultrasonic imaging with clutter filtering for perfusion. Insana teaches an ultrasound system with computer (see par. [0103], [0113]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of ultrasound system with computer in the invention of Demene, as taught by Insana, to provide real time efficient and accurate way of processing image data at fast pace.
Regarding claim 2, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein processing the image data to reduce motion corruption includes analyzing the motion matrix to identify a reference frame for motion correction and reducing motion corruption in the image data based in part on the identified reference frame (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 3, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein the reference frame is identified from the motion matrix as the image frame having a highest similarity metric with respect to other image frames in the image data (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 4, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein outlier frames that exceed a threshold value difference from the reference frame are rejected (see page 2276).
Regarding claim 5, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein analyzing the motion matrix comprises identifying image frames that experienced out-of-plane motion while the image data were acquired (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5), and wherein the updated image data are generated by rejecting those image frames identified as experiencing out-of-plane motion (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 6, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein identifying the image frames that experienced out-of-plane motion comprises identifying image frames from the motion matrix that are associated with low coherence (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 7, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows further comprising generating a spatiotemporal coherence map from the motion matrix and identifying the image frames that experienced out-of-plane motion using the spatiotemporal coherence map (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 8, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein the updated image data are generated by rejecting only local spatial regions identified in the spatiotemporal coherence map as being associated with out-of-plane motion (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 9, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein steps (b)-(d) are performed in real-time as the image data are being acquired with the ultrasound system (see par. [2272], [2284]).
Regarding claim 10, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein steps (b)-(d) are performed after the image data have been acquired with the ultrasound system (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 11, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows further comprising generating from the motion matrix data, a motion correction quality metric indicative of a quantitative measure of motion correction quality and providing the motion correction quality metric to a user (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 12, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein the motion correction quality metric is based on a rank of the motion matrix data (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 13, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein the reformatted data comprise a Casorati matrix, wherein each column of the Casorati matrix corresponds to a vectorized image frame obtained from a different time point (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 15, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein the similarity metric is a covariance metric (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 17, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein the similarity metric is at least one of a magnitude of a column of the Casorati matrix (see fig. 2 and 3).
Regarding claim 20, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene shows wherein analyzing the motion matrix comprises deciding frame-pairs in the image data and an optimal search window size for motion tracking within the image data (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
Regarding claim 21, Demene discloses a spatiotemporal clutter filtering of ultrafast ultrasound data. Demene shows a method for generating motion corrected Doppler ensemble data (abstract), the method comprising: (a) providing ultrasound data acquired from a subject with an ultrasound system (see abstract, page 2277), wherein the ultrasound data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points (see abstract; fig. 3); (b) generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); (c) generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); (d) processing the motion matrix to identify a reference frame with the computer system (see page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); (e) analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired (see page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); and (f) generating motion corrected Doppler ensemble data based upon the updated ultrasound data using the computer system(see abstract; fig. 2-3 and 5).
But, Demene fails to explicitly state providing a computer system.
Insana discloses an ultrasonic imaging with clutter filtering for perfusion. Insana teaches an ultrasound system with computer (see par. [0103], [0113]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of ultrasound system with computer in the invention of Demene, as taught by Insana, to provide real time efficient and accurate way of processing image data at fast pace.
Regarding claim 22, Demene discloses a spatiotemporal clutter filtering of ultrafast ultrasound data. Demene shows a method to generate a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced motion tracking accuracy and speed (see abstract, page 2277), the method comprising: (a) providing ultrasound data acquired from a subject with an ultrasound system (see abstract, page 2277), wherein the ultrasound data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points (see abstract; fig. 3); (b) generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); (c) generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); (d) processing the motion matrix to identify a reference (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5); (e) analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5); and (f) generating a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced motion tracking accuracy and speed based upon the updated ultrasound data using the computer system (see abstract; fig. 2-3 and 5).
But, Demene fails to explicitly state providing a computer system.
Insana discloses an ultrasonic imaging with clutter filtering for perfusion. Insana teaches an ultrasound system with computer (see par. [0103], [0113]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of ultrasound system with computer in the invention of Demene, as taught by Insana, to provide real time efficient and accurate way of processing image data at fast pace.
Regarding claim 23, Demene discloses a spatiotemporal clutter filtering of ultrafast ultrasound data. Demene shows method a method to generate a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced similarity (see abstract; page 2277), the method comprising: (a) providing ultrasound data acquired from a subject with an ultrasound system (see abstract; page 2277), wherein the ultrasound data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points (see abstract; fig. 3); (b) generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); (c) generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); (d) processing the motion matrix to identify a reference frame with the computer system (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5); (e) analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired by removing image frames with a similarity metric below a threshold value (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5); and (f) generating a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced similarity based upon the updated ultrasound data using the computer system (see abstract; fig. 2-3 and 5).
But, Demene fails to explicitly state providing a computer system.
Insana discloses an ultrasonic imaging with clutter filtering for perfusion. Insana teaches an ultrasound system with computer (see par. [0103], [0113]).
Therefore, it would have obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of ultrasound system with computer in the invention of Demene, as taught by Insana, to provide real time efficient and accurate way of processing image data at fast pace.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demene et al. (“ Spatiotemporal Clutter Filtering of Ultrafast Ultrasound Data Highly Increases Doppler and fUltrasound Sensitivity”; IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 34, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2015; hereinafter Demene), in view of Insana et al. (US 2019/0380684; hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2018/0139467; hereinafter Lee).
Regarding claim 14, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Demene teaches rejected when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates translation motion occurred when the image data were acquired (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5), but fail to explicitly state reacquire image data that are rejected.
Lee discloses an medical imaging apparatus and teaches reacquiring imaging data that were rejected (see par. [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of reacquiring imaging data that were rejected because of motion in the invention of Demene and Insana, as taught by Lee, to provide a better image without any artifact caused by motion.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Demene et al. (“ Spatiotemporal Clutter Filtering of Ultrafast Ultrasound Data Highly Increases Doppler and fUltrasound Sensitivity”; IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON MEDICAL IMAGING, VOL. 34, NO. 11, NOVEMBER 2015; hereinafter Demene), in view of Insana et al. (US 2019/0380684; hereinafter) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Furnival et al. (“Denoising time-resolved microscopy image sequences with singular value thresholding”; ultramicroscopy 178 (2017); hereinafter Furnival).
Regarding claim 19, Demene and Insana disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, but fails to explicitly state using a Euclidian distance.
Furnival discloses denoising microscopy image sequence. Furnival teaches using Euclidian distance (see left column on page 117).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of Furnival, to utilized the teaching of using Euclidian distance in the invention to denoise image noise in the invention of Demene and Insana, as taught by Furnival, to provide a simplicity way to quantify the dissimilarity between data points.
Response to Arguments
The previous Double Patent rejection has been withdrawn in view of Applicant filing of terminal disclaimer filled on 10/15/2025.
The previous rejection under 35 USC 112 (b) has been withdrawn in view of Applicant’s amendment to claim 13.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/15/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to Applicant’s arguments on pages 7-11, with respect to claim rejection under 35 USC 101, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner maintains the claim rejection under 35 USC 101 of claims 1, and 21-23 because the claims recite limitations that are directed to an abstract because the claim limitation can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(B). Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Furthermore, the examiner notes that claims do not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the extra claim limitations of image data acquired from a subject with ultrasound system, wherein the image data comprise image frames obtained at a plurality of different time points are directed to extra solution activity and do not add significantly more than the abstract idea. Furthermore, the additional element of a generic computer components (“a computer system”) to execute the abstract ideas do not add significantly more than the abstract idea because since the one or more hardware processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the recited abstract ideas. The Applicant argues that the claims are not directed to mathematical calculations or mental processes in the abstract, but rather to a specific technological solution for motion tracking and correction in ultrasound imaging system, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that the claims are not abstract idea because claims recite limitation that are improvement to the technology, however, none of the claims recite additional claim limitations that are not abstract idea and significantly more than the abstract idea. The examiner notes that the limitations that are directed to abstract can’t be the sole reason and directed to the improvement to the technology. Furthermore, the Applicant states “the characterization of the claims as generic computer implementation fails to recognize the domain-specific nature of the technological solution”, however, the examiner nots that the previous office action does not state that the all the limitations in claims 1, and 21-23 are generic computer implementation. The examiner stated that the additional element of a generic computer components (“a computer system”) to execute the abstract ideas do not add significantly more than the abstract idea because since the one or more hardware processors are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the recited abstract ideas. Furthermore, the examiner notes that Casorati matrix reforming and similarity metrics is not a generic mathematical operation, but calculating and generating Casorati matrix and similarity metrics are directed to abstract idea. The examiner notes that the independent claims does not recite reconstructing “improved” micro vessel images from motion-corrected data, and motion matrix analysis for “improved” data quality, and frame miss-registration that invalidates gains from temporal integration of Doppler frames.
In response to Applicant’s argument on pages 13-16, with respect to prior art rejection, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The Applicant argues that prior art rejection of claims 1 and 21-23 is improper because prior art Demene and the claimed invention address fundamentally different technical problems, the examiner respectfully disagrees. The examiner notes that even if prior art Demene discloses different technical problems, Demene still reads on the claim limitations recited in the independent claims.
With regards to claim 1, the examiner maintains that prior art Demene does show a method for generating an image that depicts microvessels in a subject using an ultrasound images using ultrasound system (see abstract, page 2277), generating reformatted data with by reformatting the image data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); and generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); and analyzing the motion matrix data and based on this analysis generating updated image data by processing the image data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the image data were acquired (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
With regards to claim 21, the examiner maintains that prior art Demene does show a method for generating motion corrected Doppler ensemble data (abstract), the method comprising: generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); and analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired (see page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5).
With regards to claim 22, the examiner maintains that prior art Demene does show a method to generate a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced motion tracking accuracy and speed (see abstract, page 2277), the method comprising: generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); and analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5).
With regards to claim 23, the examiner maintains that prior art Demene does show a method to generate a reduced ensemble of high frame-rate data with enhanced similarity (see abstract; page 2277), the method comprising: generating reformatted data by reformatting the ultrasound data as a Casorati matrix (see left column on page 2273, right column on page 2273, right column on page 2275; fig. 3); generating motion matrix data by computing a similarity metric of each column of the reformatted data with every other column of the reformatted data (see “covariance matrix” on page 2273-2275; fig. 2-3 and 5); analyzing the motion matrix data with the identified reference frame and based on this analysis generating updated ultrasound data by processing the ultrasound data to reduce motion corruption when analysis of the motion matrix data indicates motion occurred when the ultrasound data were acquired by removing image frames with a similarity metric below a threshold value (see abstract; pages 2273-2275; fig. 2-3, and 5). upon the updated ultrasound data using the computer system (see abstract; fig. 2-3 and 5).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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