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 Amendment
The response includes amendments to the claims, a 130(a) Affidavit, and remarks made by Applicant. The above have been entered and considered. Accordingly, the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101, 112, and 102(a)(2) are all withdrawn. However, the claims are not allowable as indicated below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claims are eligible under USPTO Example 3 because the steps of summing, sorting, and measuring data samples improve ultrasound technology and computer functioning. However, unlike Example 3 which recites a specific, non-conventional mathematical model integrated into a physical display technology, the present claims merely perform conventional mathematical manipulations of data on a generic processor, where the physical transducer is limited to pre-solution data gathering and the output is conventional post-solution data transmission. Therefore, because the claims do not improve the underlying computer hardware or ultrasound technology itself but rather apply conventional mathematical calculations to generic computer components, the rejection of Claims 1–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is maintained as explained and clarified below.
.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5, Step (2): “…summing, with the processor, the data sample at very location in the image space;” should be corrected to “…at every location…” (as correctly written in Claim 1, Step 2).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “TCP/IP” in claims 1 and 7 is unclear. This is not a physical medium, connector, nor cable. Rather, it appears to be a transmission protocol. For the purpose of examination, this is understood to be “via a TCP/IP network connection,” and is treated as such.
The dependent claims are likewise rejected.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Regarding claim 1, the invention is directed to a “computer implemented method,” which has several steps. Therefore, claim 1 is directed to the statutory category of a process. The claim is now evaluated to determine whether it recites a judicial exception from the USPTO-defined groupings for Step 2a, prong 1:
A. Mathematical Concepts
Claim 1 recites mathematical calculations, mathematical relationships, and algorithms. Specifically:
“…transmitting along an impulse response curve” (recites a mathematical projection/mapping curve).
“summing… the data sample at every location…” (recites basic arithmetic addition).
“further summing… to generate a plurality of partial images…” (recites iterative arithmetic addition).
“sorting… to form common image point gathers…” (recites a data-sorting algorithm).
“measuring… residual moveout values…” (recites calculating spatial/temporal offsets).
“inverting… the residual moveout values to form an image…” (recites a mathematical inversion algorithm).
These steps represent mathematical manipulations of numerical data. The “transmitting” of a data sample in “a)” is not a physical transmission of acoustic energy; rather, it is a mapping of previously “measured” data along a calculated curve within a virtual “image space” using a processor.
B. Mental Processes
Claim 1 also recites mental processes. Specifically:
4) “sorting… the partial images…”
5) “measuring… residual moveout values…”
6) “inverting… the residual moveout values…”
Sorting data, measuring differences, and inverting mathematical values are information processing steps that can be performed conceptually in the human mind or with the aid of pen and paper.
Therefore, for Step 2A, Prong 1, claim 1 does indeed recite judicial exceptions of Mathematical Concepts and Mental Processes.
Moving on to Step 2A, Prong 2 we must evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the judicial exceptions into a practical application.
A. Improvement to Computer Functionality or Other Technology
The specification discloses in at least paragraph [0005] that the invention provides an improved B-mode image with better contrast and spatial resolution, as well as a sound speed image.
However, claim 1 does not recite how the computer hardware or the ultrasound imaging system itself is improved in its physical operation. The physical transducer is merely used as a source of raw data (pre-solution data gathering).
The claim does not recite any physical feedback loop or control mechanism that alters the operation of the ultrasound transducer based on the generated sound speed image.
B. Particular Machine or Transformation
Claim 1 recites a “processor,” “first memory location,” “second memory location,” “third memory location,” “TCP/IP,” and “display port on a host computer.” These are generic, conventional computing and networking components. They do not impose any meaningful physical limitations on the mathematical steps. So no particular machine recited.
Also, there is no physical transformation of an article. The input is a “measured” data sample (numerical data), and the output is a “sound speed image” (visualized numerical data). This is a transformation of data, which is not a statutory physical transformation.
C. Extra-Solution Activity and Field-of-Use Limitations
The phrase “measured with an apparatus that contains an ultrasound array transducer” in step is conventional pre-solution data gathering. It merely identifies the source of the data to be mathematically processed.
The step of “sending the sound speed image to a net address via a TCP/IP, a display port on a host computer, or a third memory location” in step 6 ) is conventional post-solution activity. Transmitting or displaying the results of a mathematical calculation does not integrate the calculation into a practical application.
The claim as a whole does not integrate the judicial exceptions into a practical application. Therefore, concluding Step 2, the claim is directed to the abstract idea without integration into a practical application.
Moving to Step 2B, we must determine whether the additional elements, both individually and as an ordered combination, amount to “significantly more” than the exception.
Claim 1 recites individual elements, such as the processor, ultrasound array transducer, first, second and third memory locations, and ICP/IP and a display port. These combination of these elements are conventional, and simply describe the steps of gathering data from a conventional sensor, performing mathematical calculations on a generic processor, storing intermediate values in conventional memory, and displaying/transmitting the final calculated values. There is no non-conventional architecture or hardware-software interaction. Therefore, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and claim 1 is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
The dependent claims inhering the same issues and are likewise ineligible.
Furthermore, claims 2-4 merely recite additional abstract ideas without adding any physical hardware, nor do they integrate the exception into a practical application. For example, claim 2 adds the steps of “setting an initial sound speed” and “calculating… using the initial sound speed.” These are further mathematical calculations and parameters. Claim 3 merely specifies a conventional constant within a mathematical calculation does not add an inventive concept or integrate the exception. Claim 4 applies “spatial smoothing,” however this is a standard mathematical filtering technique and does not add “significantly more.”
Regarding claim 5, the invention is directed to a “computer implemented method,” which has several steps, many that are identical to claim 1. However, claim 5 recites additional signal-processing steps to obtain a Poisson’s ratio image. Therefore, claim 5 is directed to the statutory category of a process. The claim is now evaluated to determine whether it recites a judicial exception from the USPTO-defined groupings for Step 2a, prong 1:
Claim 5 recites similar mathematical calculations, relationships, and algorithms, therefore similar to claim 1, is categorized as mathematical concepts and mental processes.
Similar to claim 1, claim 5 merely recites pre-solution data gathering, post-solution activity, generic computer implementation and no technological improvement to the functioning of a computer or ultrasound sensor. Nor do they recite any physical control loop, feedback mechanism, or physical signal transformation. The output of claims 5 is merely the display or storage of calculated data, which is a results-oriented outcome.
And similar to claim 1, the recited elements of claim 5 simply describe gathering data from a conventional sensor, performing mathematical calculations on a generic processor, storing intermediate values in conventional memory, and displaying/transmitting the final calculated values. This is nothing more than instructions to apply the mathematical exception on a generic computer system.
Consequently, the additional elements of claim 5, both individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exceptions, and claim 5 is therefore ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Furthermore, claims 6 and 7 merely recite additional abstract ideas without adding any physical hardware, nor do they integrate the exception into a practical application. For example, claim 6 recites further mathematical calculations (e.g., linear regression parameters) that do not integrate the exception. Claim 7 also recites mathematical calculations representing a mathematical concept and do not provide eligibility under 101.
Accordingly, claims 1–7 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US PGPUB 20060025682 to Vanderby et al. teaches the reconstruction of physical tissue properties (such as sound speed, Poisson’s ratio, and shear properties) from ultrasound data.
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 PETER J MACCHIAROLO whose telephone number is (571)272-2375. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-3pm.
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, Andrea Wellington can be reached at (571) 272-4483. 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.
/PETER J MACCHIAROLO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2855
Prosecution Insights