DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 07/09/2026 concerning application no. 18/319408 filed on 05/17/2023.
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 14-20, and 22-24 are pending.
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 with respect to claims 1 and 20 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.
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 1-6, 9-11, 14-20, and 22-24 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “set, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region”. While the specification discusses the user input and using it for setting the display layout (Paragraph 0094), the specification fails to establish a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region being set by the user and the condition being associated to the imaging feature information and the probe positional information. Rather, as the specification states, the display input is according to user preference. Nowhere does the specification establish the user defining conditions associated to the imaging feature and the probe positional information such that it is used in the following extraction and implementation in the display layout. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 14 recites “wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition regarding image type information indicating whether an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B-mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image”. While the specification discloses whether or not an image is a B-mode image, the specification fails to disclose that the user input is setting a condition. Furthermore, the specification fails to disclose that the condition is whether or not an image is a B-mode image. Nowhere does the specification establish the user defining conditions associated to the imaging feature and the probe positional information such that it is used in the following extraction and implementation in the display layout. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 20 recites “setting, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region”. While the specification discusses the user input and using it for setting the display layout (Paragraph 0094), the specification fails to establish a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region being set by the user and the condition being associated to the imaging feature information and the probe positional information. Rather, as the specification states, the display input is according to user preference. Nowhere does the specification establish the user defining conditions associated to the imaging feature and the probe positional information such that it is used in the following extraction and implementation in the display layout. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 22 recites “wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition that an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B- mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction”. While the specification discloses whether or not an image is a B-mode image, the specification fails to disclose that the user input is setting a condition. The specification does not disclose that a condition that is in consideration of the same cross-section and the same lesion part. Nowhere does the specification establish the user defining conditions associated to the imaging feature and the probe positional information such that it is used in the following extraction and implementation in the display layout. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 23 recites “wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of first display regions include a condition regarding a first orientation of the ultrasound probe, wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of second display regions include a condition regarding a second orientation of the ultrasound probe different from the first orientation, and wherein conditions specified for display regions arranged at different positions in a row include conditions regarding different positions of the lesion part in the ultrasound image”. While the specification discloses a display layout in the form of Fig. 12 with varying cross-sectional imaging, the specification does not disclose that the orientations are a condition. The specification fails to establish a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region being set by the user and the condition being associated to the imaging feature information and the probe positional information. Rather, as the specification states, the display input is according to user preference. Nowhere does the specification establish the user defining conditions associated to the imaging feature and the probe positional information such that it is used in the following extraction and implementation in the display layout. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 24 recites “wherein a peripheral portion includes a breast duct leading to the lesion part”. While the specification discloses peripheral portions and peripheral tissue. The specification fails to disclose that the peripheral portion is including the breast duct leading to the lesion part. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claim 24 recites “wherein the processor is configured to extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image in which both the lesion part and the breast duct leading to the lesion part are imaged”. While the specification discusses the user input and using it for setting the display layout (Paragraph 0094), the specification fails to establish a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region being set by the user and the condition being associated to the imaging feature information and the probe positional information. Rather, as the specification states, the display input is according to user preference. Nowhere does the specification establish the user defining conditions associated to the imaging feature and the probe positional information such that it is used in the following extraction and implementation in the display layout. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) are also rejected because they inherit the deficiencies of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 1-6, 9-11, 14-20, and 22-24 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.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “analyze the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. An image is “a visual representation of something”1. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner an ultrasound image can contain a plurality of sets of imaging features that have the lesion parts. An image is a fixed representation at the time of acquisition. Furthermore, it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner the ultrasound image can be representative of the probe pose as the probe is the device responsible for acquisition.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an instruction from the user”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “instruction from the user” is the same as the “a user's input operation” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 4 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an instruction from the user”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “instruction from the user” is the same as the “a user's input operation” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 5 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “add, to each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a body mark plotted with a probe mark indicating a position and an orientation of the ultrasound probe, the body mark schematically representing a body part of a subject”. This claim element is indefinite. An image is “a visual representation of something”2. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner the ultrasound images does not contain the lesion part as defined in claim 1 such that the body mark provides a representation of the body part. That is, the ultrasound image of a subject would contain the anatomy of the imaged subject. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the body mark is attempting to further define.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a position”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “position” is the same as the “position” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an orientation”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “orientation” is the same as the “orientation” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 14 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “ultrasound image” is the same as the “ultrasound image” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the ultrasound image is of the plurality of ultrasound established in the claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 20 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “analyzing the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. An image is “a visual representation of something”3. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner an ultrasound image can contain a plurality of sets of imaging features that have the lesion parts. An image is a fixed representation at the time of acquisition. Furthermore, it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner the ultrasound image can be representative of the probe pose as the probe is the device responsible for acquisition.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 22 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition that an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B- mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the lesion part is being equated to.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition that an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B- mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the cross-section is being equated to.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “ultrasound image” is the same as the “ultrasound image” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the ultrasound image is of the plurality of ultrasound established in the claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the same lesion part”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the same cross-sectional direction”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “wherein the processor is configured to extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region, the B-mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction by referring to the image type information and the plurality of sets”. This claim element is indefinite. The claims appear to be establishing a template matching. However, the preceding claim 1 that the claim depends on establishes an extraction from an acquired data set. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner the extraction is happening and whether the claim is attempting to establish a form of template matching.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 24 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the conditions”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Recites “the conditions”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the conditions include the condition of claim 1 or is referring to a separate and distinct set of conditions. If it is the former, it would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art as the claim 1 establishes that the condition is for each for the display regions. If it is the later, it would be unclear what the relationship to the condition is as it is defined to be associated to the display regions as well.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a condition”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “condition” is the same as the “condition” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a condition”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “condition” is the same as the “condition” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “first orientation”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “first orientation” is the same as the “orientation” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “second orientation”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “second orientation” is the same as the “orientation” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “different positions of the lesion part in the ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. An image is “a visual representation of something”4. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art in what manner an ultrasound image can contain different positions of the lesion part. An image is a fixed representation at the time of acquisition.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Claim 24 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “the lesion part is a lesion part”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is attempting to establish a further element within the preceding recitation of the lesion part in addition to the context of the breast tissue.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “a peripheral portion”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the peripheral portion is in periphery to in the context of the breast tissue and the lesion part.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the ultrasound image is with respect to the plurality of ultrasound images or is a separate and distinct ultrasound image.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an ultrasound image”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “ultrasound image” is the same as the “ultrasound image” established in claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 3, in its, entirety recites “The image display apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to set the display layout on the basis of an instruction from the user.” Claim 1 recites “a processor configured to: set, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region, wherein the imaging feature information includes lesion part position information regarding a position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image, and the probe positional information includes a position and an orientation of an ultrasound probe.” The language of the claim 1 establishes that the process is configured to receive user input for the instruction layout. Therefore, claim 3 is in in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 4, in its, entirety recites “The image display apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to set the display layout on the basis of an instruction from the user.”5 Claim 1 recites “a processor configured to: set, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region, wherein the imaging feature information includes lesion part position information regarding a position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image, and the probe positional information includes a position and an orientation of an ultrasound probe.” The language of the claim 1 establishes that the process is configured to receive user input for the instruction layout. Therefore, claim 4 is in in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-6, 9-11, 14-20, and 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “analyze the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image; extract from the plurality of ultrasound images, for each of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region by referring to the plurality of sets”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analysis of ultrasound images for the probe pose information that is associated to it and the imaging feature present in the image associated to the lesion and the extraction of the image regions that satisfy a condition for display. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “a monitor; a memory; and a processor configured to: set, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region, wherein the imaging feature information includes lesion part position information regarding a position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image, and the probe positional information includes a position and an orientation of an ultrasound probe; and display each of the extracted ultrasound images in each of the corresponding display regions, respectively, on the monitor according to the display layout”. The setting of the display layout and a condition associated to the pose and lesion is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Display of the extracted images is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor and memory does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 1 is ineligible.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “perform the analyzation of the plurality of ultrasound images acquired”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analysis of acquired ultrasound images that can be done be the observing of the information associated to the images. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the plurality of ultrasound images in which the lesion part is imaged by using the ultrasound probe”. Acquisition of the ultrasound images is a data gathering step which is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor and probe does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 2 is ineligible.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 1 rejection.
Claim 3 recites the following elements: “wherein the processor is configured to set the display layout on the basis of an instruction from the user”. This claim element is a mere setting of the display layout via input is a display step which amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. This post-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 3 is ineligible.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 4 recites the following elements: “wherein the processor is configured to set the display layout on the basis of an instruction from the user”. This claim element is a mere setting of the display layout via input is a display step which amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. This post-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 4 is ineligible.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “add, to each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a body mark plotted with a probe mark indicating a position and an orientation of the ultrasound probe, the body mark schematically representing a body part of a subject; and acquire the probe positional information included in each of the plurality of sets based on the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe indicated by the probe mark”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the inclusion of a body mark and probe mark that represent the body and probe respectively and acquire the associated pose information based on the probe mark. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 5 is ineligible.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “add the probe positional information and the imaging feature information acquired to each of the plurality of ultrasound images; and perform the extraction of the ultrasound image by referring to the probe positional information and the imaging feature information added to the plurality of ultrasound images”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the addition of the probe position and imaging feature information onto the ultrasound images and extracting the ultrasound image according to that information. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 6 is ineligible.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 and Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception are discussed above in the claim 2 rejection.
Claim 9 recites the following elements: “wherein the ultrasound probe has a position sensor that detects the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and the processor acquires the probe positional information included in each of the plurality of sets on the basis of the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe detected by the position sensor”. This claim element is a mere data gathering step which amounts to a pre-solution insignificant activity. The use of an ultrasound probe and a position sensor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception. This pre-solution insignificant activity does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor does it contain an inventive step. In light of above, claim 9 is ineligible.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “performs image analysis on each of the plurality of ultrasound images to detect the lesion part and acquire the lesion part position information”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the performance of an image analysis to detect the lesion part and the feature information in relation to the ultrasound images. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor performs”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 10 is ineligible.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “performs image analysis on each of the plurality of ultrasound images to detect the lesion part and acquire the lesion part position information”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the performance of an image analysis to detect the lesion part and the feature information in relation to the ultrasound images. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor performs”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 11 is ineligible.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition regarding image type information indicating whether an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B-mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the assessment of a condition being reflective of an ultrasound image type that is whether or not it is a B-mode image. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim does not contain additional elements. Therefore, the claim does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similar to Step 2A Prong 2, the claim does not contain additional elements. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 14 is ineligible.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “acquire image type information indicating whether the ultrasound image is a B- mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image, together with the probe positional information and the imaging feature information, and perform the extraction of the ultrasound image by referring to the probe positional information, the image type information, and the imaging feature information that are acquired”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the acquisition of image type information indicating the ultrasound probe time and the other information and extracting the acquired information. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 15 is ineligible.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “acquires the image type information on the basis of tag information added to each of the plurality of ultrasound images”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the acquisition of image type information on the basis of tag information associated to it. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor acquires”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 16 is ineligible.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “acquires the image type information on the basis of tag information added to each of the plurality of ultrasound images”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the acquisition of image type information on the basis of tag information associated to it. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor acquires”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 17 is ineligible.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “acquires the image type information on the basis of RGB signal values of each of the plurality of ultrasound images”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the acquisition of image information according to RGB signal values. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor acquires”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 18 is ineligible.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an image display apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “extract B-mode images from the plurality of acquired ultrasound images on the basis of the image type information; and perform the analyzation of the extracted B-mode images as the ultrasound images”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the extraction of a B-mode image from a plurality of images based on image type information and performing an analysis on the images. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 19 is ineligible.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite a control method of an image display apparatus and therefore, is a method.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “analyzing the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image; extracting from the plurality of ultrasound images, for each of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region by referring to the plurality of sets”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the analysis of ultrasound images for the probe pose information that is associated to it and the imaging feature present in the image associated to the lesion and the extraction of the image regions that satisfy a condition for display. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “setting, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region, wherein the imaging feature information includes lesion part position information regarding a position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image, and the probe positional information includes a position and an orientation of an ultrasound probe; and displaying each of the extracted ultrasound images in each of the corresponding display regions, respectively, on a monitor according to the display layout”. The setting of the display layout and a condition associated to the pose and lesion is a data gathering step that is a form of a pre-solution insignificant activity. Display of the extracted images is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity. The use of a processor and memory does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 20 is ineligible.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition that an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B- mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction, and extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region, the B-mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction by referring to the image type information and the plurality of sets”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to a condition being based on whether the image is a B-mode image of the same lesion and cross-section and the extraction according to that condition. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to extract”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 22 is ineligible.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of first display regions include a condition regarding a first orientation of the ultrasound probe, wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of second display regions include a condition regarding a second orientation of the ultrasound probe different from the first orientation”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to conditions associated to the orientation information that is then organized for display. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the plurality of display regions include a plurality of first display regions arranged in a first row and a plurality of second display regions arranged in a second row, wherein conditions specified for display regions arranged at different positions in a row include conditions regarding different positions of the lesion part in the ultrasound image”. The display regions being displayed is a display step that merely amounts to a post-solution insignificant activity.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 23 is ineligible.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Statutory Category: Yes - The claims recite an image display apparatus and therefore, is an apparatus.
Step 2A, Prong 1, Judicial Exception: Yes - The claim recites the limitation “wherein the lesion part is a lesion part in a breast of a subject, wherein a peripheral portion includes a breast duct leading to the lesion part, and extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image in which both the lesion part and the breast duct leading to the lesion part are imaged”.
This limitation, as drafted, is a process step that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers the performance of the limitation in the mind as it is regarding a concept relating to the extraction according to the image being of the lesion and breast tissue. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind and/or being performed with the aid of a pen and paper. Accordingly, the claim recites a mental process-type abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2, Integrated into Practical Application: No - The claim recites the following additional elements: “wherein the processor is configured to extract”. The use of a processor does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as it is merely used to perform the judicial exception.
These additional elements, taken individually or in combination, merely amount to insignificant pre/post-solution activities and do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. This claim is therefore directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B, Inventive Concept: No - Similarly to Step 2A Prong 2, the additional claim elements merely recite insignificant extra-solution activities, which do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For these reasons, there is no inventive concept in the claim. In light of the above, claim 24 is ineligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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, 9-11, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2005/0281444) in view of Caluser et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0051489).
Regarding claim 1, Lundberg teaches an image display apparatus comprising:
a monitor (Fig. 1);
a memory (Fig. 1); and
a processor (Fig. 1) configured to:
set, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region, wherein the imaging feature information includes lesion part position information regarding a position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image, and the probe positional information includes a position and an orientation of an ultrasound probe (Paragraphs 0034-36 teaches that the scan parameters can be set by the user. The parameters can determine the plane angle and tilt and the type of multiplane scan to be performed. The scan of the object can be according to the planar scan and can be a patient specific scan parameter that can be adjusted. Paragraphs 0030-31 teach that the probes have positioning sensors and are moved to scan the ROI. Paragraphs 0028-29 disclose that the user can determine the number of desired planes and the respective scan type will display the number of images);
analyze the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image; extract from the plurality of ultrasound images, for each of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region by referring to the plurality of sets (Paragraphs 0049-51 teach that the screen display shows the images and the scans with respect to the view and probe position. The screen display can show differing volumes. The display show differing views at the of the volume. The user input can adjust the parameters to control the cut plane and show the varying levels and obtain the desired viewpoint. Fig. 7. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the parameters can be determined and the display can be according to the input scans and the views can be adjusted); and
display each of the extracted ultrasound images in each of the corresponding display regions, respectively, on the monitor according to the display layout (Abstract teaches the display of ultrasound images according to a protocol. See Figs. 3-4, 6-7, and 9).
While Lundberg teaches implementation in the context of cardiac tissue, Lundberg is silent regarding an image display apparatus, the consideration of a lesion part.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, analyze the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image (Paragraph 0019 teaches that the apparatus is able to perform automated ultrasound probe position registration in real time. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the lesion can be imaged. Paragraph 0022 teaches the image set is according to each pixel with respect to the position of a target pixel. The target pixel selection can be made at the time of capture, before the image save, or at a later time. Paragraph 0117 teaches that the image can be displayed in relation to the target region that is defined by the pixels. Paragraph 0120 teaches that each position of the pixel is performed in relation to the anatomical references. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the position coordinates of the lesion can be obtained. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the real size of the body part is known and the position tracking allows for the assessment of when the probe is outside of the range. Fig. 15 shows a range of images over the body position. Paragraph 0138 teaches that the spatial range can be used in the assessment of the lesions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of consideration of a lesion part in probe positioning and image display. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 2, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, further comprising:
the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the plurality of ultrasound images in which the lesion part is imaged by using the ultrasound probe; and perform the analyzation of the plurality of ultrasound images acquired (Paragraphs 0049-51 teach that the screen display shows the images and the scans with respect to the view and probe position. The screen display can show differing volumes. The display show differing views at the of the volume. The user input can adjust the parameters to control the cut plane and show the varying levels and obtain the desired viewpoint. Fig. 7. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the parameters can be determined and the display can be according to the input scans and the views can be adjusted).
However, Lundberg is silent regarding an image display apparatus, consideration of a lesion part.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, the ultrasound probe, wherein the processor is configured to: acquire the plurality of ultrasound images in which the lesion part is imaged by using the ultrasound probe; and perform the analyzation of the plurality of ultrasound images acquired (Fig. 1 shows an ultrasound probe. Paragraph 0019 teaches that the apparatus is able to perform automated ultrasound probe position registration in real time. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the lesion can be imaged. Paragraph 0021 teaches the ultrasound imaging. 0096 teaches that the position coordinates of the lesion can be obtained. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the real size of the body part is known and the position tracking allows for the assessment of when the probe is outside of the range. Fig. 15 shows a range of images over the body position. Paragraph 0138 teaches that the spatial range can be used in the assessment of the lesions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of consideration of a lesion part in probe positioning and image display. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 3, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to set the display layout on the basis of an instruction from the user (Paragraphs 0034-36 teaches that the scan parameters can be set by the user. The parameters can determine the plane angle and tilt and the type of multiplane scan to be performed. The scan of the object can be according to the planar scan and can be a patient specific scan parameter that can be adjusted. Paragraphs 0030-31 teach that the probes have positioning sensors and are moved to scan the ROI. Paragraphs 0028-29 disclose that the user can determine the number of desired planes and the respective scan type will display the number of images).
Regarding claim 4, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 2, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to set the display layout on the basis of an instruction from the user (Paragraphs 0034-36 teaches that the scan parameters can be set by the user. The parameters can determine the plane angle and tilt and the type of multiplane scan to be performed. The scan of the object can be according to the planar scan and can be a patient specific scan parameter that can be adjusted. Paragraphs 0030-31 teach that the probes have positioning sensors and are moved to scan the ROI. Paragraphs 0028-29 disclose that the user can determine the number of desired planes and the respective scan type will display the number of images).
Regarding claim 5, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Lundberg is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
add, to each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a body mark plotted with a probe mark indicating a position and an orientation of the ultrasound probe, the body mark schematically representing a body part of a subject; and
acquire the probe positional information included in each of the plurality of sets based on the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe indicated by the probe mark.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
add, to each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a body mark plotted with a probe mark indicating a position and an orientation of the ultrasound probe, the body mark schematically representing a body part of a subject (Paragraph 0019 teaches that the apparatus is able to perform automated ultrasound probe position registration in real time. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the lesion can be imaged. Paragraph 0021 teaches the ultrasound imaging. Paragraph 0078 teaches the coregistration of the body location and the tracked probe position and orientation with respect to the real time ultrasound images. Anatomical references can also be used for the coregistration. See at least Figs. 6, 30, 60, 62, and 69); and
acquire the probe positional information included in each of the plurality of sets based on the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe indicated by the probe mark (Paragraph 0019 teaches that the apparatus is able to perform automated ultrasound probe position registration in real time. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the lesion can be imaged. Paragraph 0021 teaches the ultrasound imaging. Paragraph 0078 teaches the coregistration of the body location and the tracked probe position and orientation with respect to the real time ultrasound images. Anatomical references can also be used for the coregistration. See at least Figs. 6, 30, 60, 62, and 69).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of use of a probe and body mark. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 6, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 2, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
add the probe positional information and the imaging feature information acquired to each of the plurality of ultrasound images (Paragraph 0042 teaches that the ultrasound images are imaged according to the protocol and have a corresponding scan plane. The images and the associated information is saved in the memory. Paragraph 0043 teaches the organization of the information. Paragraph 0039 teaches that the information can be personalized and stored with the associated information. See Figs. 8-9); and
perform the extraction of the ultrasound image by referring to the probe positional information and the imaging feature information added to the plurality of ultrasound images (Paragraphs 0049-51 teach that the screen display shows the images and the scans with respect to the view and probe position. The screen display can show differing volumes. The display show differing views at the of the volume. The user input can adjust the parameters to control the cut plane and show the varying levels and obtain the desired viewpoint. Fig. 7. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the parameters can be determined and the display can be according to the input scans and the views can be adjusted).
Regarding claim 9, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 2, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the ultrasound probe has a position sensor that detects the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and the processor acquires the probe positional information included in each of the plurality of sets on the basis of the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe detected by the position sensor (Paragraph 0030 teaches that the transducer can have positioning sensors. Paragraphs 0034-36 teaches that the scan parameters can be set by the user. The parameters can determine the plane angle and tilt and the type of multiplane scan to be performed. The scan of the object can be according to the planar scan and can be a patient specific scan parameter that can be adjusted. Paragraphs 0030-31 teach that the probes have positioning sensors and are moved to scan the ROI).
Alternatively, in an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the ultrasound probe has a position sensor that detects the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and the processor acquires the probe positional information included in each of the plurality of sets on the basis of the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe detected by the position sensor (Paragraph 0078 teaches the use of a sensor that is able to provide position tracking information of the ultrasound probe. Fig. 1 shows the position sensor connected to the ultrasound probe).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of use of a positioning sensor. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 10, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Lundberg is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the processor performs image analysis on each of the plurality of ultrasound images to detect the lesion part and acquire the lesion part position information.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor performs image analysis on each of the plurality of ultrasound images to detect the lesion part and acquire the lesion part position information (Paragraph 0096 teaches the accurate collection and reproduction of the position coordinate information of the lesion. Paragraph 0138 teaches that the lesion is captured and recorded and the system is able to determine the lesion in the images according to the position information via image interpretation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of consideration of a lesion part. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 11, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 2, as discussed above.
However, Lundberg is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the processor performs image analysis on each of the plurality of ultrasound images to detect the lesion part and acquire the lesion part position information.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor performs image analysis on each of the plurality of ultrasound images to detect the lesion part and acquire the lesion part position information (Paragraph 0096 teaches the accurate collection and reproduction of the position coordinate information of the lesion. Paragraph 0138 teaches that the lesion is captured and recorded and the system is able to determine the lesion in the images according to the position information via image interpretation).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of consideration of a lesion part. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 20, Lundberg teaches control method of an image display apparatus, the control method comprising:
setting, based on a user's input operation, a display layout including a plurality of display regions and, for each of the plurality of display regions, a condition regarding probe positional information and imaging feature information of an ultrasound image to be displayed in a corresponding display region, wherein the imaging feature information includes lesion part position information regarding a position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image, and the probe positional information includes a position and an orientation of an ultrasound probe (Paragraphs 0034-36 teaches that the scan parameters can be set by the user. The parameters can determine the plane angle and tilt and the type of multiplane scan to be performed. The scan of the object can be according to the planar scan and can be a patient specific scan parameter that can be adjusted. Paragraphs 0030-31 teach that the probes have positioning sensors and are moved to scan the ROI. Paragraphs 0028-29 disclose that the user can determine the number of desired planes and the respective scan type will display the number of images);
analyzing the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image; extracting from the plurality of ultrasound images, for each of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region by referring to the plurality of sets (Paragraphs 0049-51 teach that the screen display shows the images and the scans with respect to the view and probe position. The screen display can show differing volumes. The display show differing views at the of the volume. The user input can adjust the parameters to control the cut plane and show the varying levels and obtain the desired viewpoint. Fig. 7. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the parameters can be determined and the display can be according to the input scans and the views can be adjusted); and
displaying each of the extracted ultrasound images in each of the corresponding display regions, respectively, on a monitor according to the display layout (Abstract teaches the display of ultrasound images according to a protocol. See Figs. 3-4, 6-7, and 9).
While Lundberg teaches implementation in the context of cardiac tissue, Lundberg is silent regarding an control method, the consideration of a lesion part.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an control method, analyzing the plurality of ultrasound images to acquire, for each of the plurality of ultrasound images, a plurality of sets of (i) probe positional information including the position and the orientation of the ultrasound probe, and (ii) imaging feature information including lesion part position information regarding the position of the lesion part in the ultrasound image (Paragraph 0019 teaches that the apparatus is able to perform automated ultrasound probe position registration in real time. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the lesion can be imaged. Paragraph 0022 teaches the image set is according to each pixel with respect to the position of a target pixel. The target pixel selection can be made at the time of capture, before the image save, or at a later time. Paragraph 0117 teaches that the image can be displayed in relation to the target region that is defined by the pixels. Paragraph 0120 teaches that each position of the pixel is performed in relation to the anatomical references. Paragraph 0096 teaches that the position coordinates of the lesion can be obtained. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the real size of the body part is known and the position tracking allows for the assessment of when the probe is outside of the range. Fig. 15 shows a range of images over the body position. Paragraph 0138 teaches that the spatial range can be used in the assessment of the lesions).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of consideration of a lesion part in probe positioning and image display. This modified method would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Regarding claim 24, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Lundberg is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the lesion part is a lesion part in a breast of a subject,
wherein a peripheral portion includes a breast duct leading to the lesion part, and
wherein the processor is configured to extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image in which both the lesion part and the breast duct leading to the lesion part are imaged.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image processing, Caluser teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the lesion part is a lesion part in a breast of a subject, wherein a peripheral portion includes a breast duct leading to the lesion part, and wherein the processor is configured to extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions, an ultrasound image in which both the lesion part and the breast duct leading to the lesion part are imaged (Paragraph 0149 teaches that the scanning is of the tumors, cysts, and ducts with respect to the larger volume. See Fig. 22 and 70-79. The images can then be segmented and the target volume can be extracted and displayed with the position and orientation recorded during the image acquisition).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Lundberg with Caluser’s teaching of imaging in relation to the breast duct. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve the accuracy and precision of imaging in real time (Paragraph 0155 of Caluser). Furthermore, the modification allows for precise positional registration of the targets and detection of small tumor masses (Paragraphs 0008-09 of Caluser).
Claims 14-17, 19, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2005/0281444) in view of Caluser et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0051489) further in view of Takimoto (PGPUB No. US 2015/0359506).
Regarding claim 14, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lundberg and Caluser is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition regarding image type information indicating whether an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B-mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image acquisition in relation to probe positioning, Takimoto teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition regarding image type information indicating whether an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B-mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image (Paragraph 0039 teaches that the system is able to confirm if the switching has passed through B-mode data. The system determines if the data has been generated in an order what includes the B-mode in relation to other modes of imaging. Paragraphs 0046-47 teaches the assessment of the position of the ultrasonic probe with respect to the patient and ensuring the imaging being done for the target. Paragraph 0049 teaches that the performance of the imaging with the order to include B-mode and the use of the probe in relation to the patient results in the display of image information that is associated to the patient physiology. See Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lundberg and Caluser with Takimoto’s teaching of assessment and confirmation that the B-mode has been passed through. This modified apparatus would allow the user to acquire patient information without operation by the user and ensuring aliasing-free information (Paragraph 0049 of Takimoto). Furthermore, the modification prevents display of an improper waveform caused by pressing the button by the operator in haste when he wants to check the entire waveform soon (Paragraph 0049 of Takimoto).
Regarding claim 15, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 2, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lundberg and Caluser is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire image type information indicating whether the ultrasound image is a B- mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image, together with the probe positional information and the imaging feature information, and
perform the extraction of the ultrasound image by referring to the probe positional information, the image type information, and the imaging feature information that are acquired.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image acquisition in relation to probe positioning, Takimoto teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
acquire image type information indicating whether the ultrasound image is a B- mode image or an ultrasound image other than a B-mode image, together with the probe positional information and the imaging feature information (Paragraph 0039 teaches that the system is able to confirm if the switching has passed through B-mode data. The system determines if the data has been generated in an order what includes the B-mode in relation to other modes of imaging. Paragraphs 0046-47 teaches the assessment of the position of the ultrasonic probe with respect to the patient and ensuring the imaging being done for the target), and
perform the extraction of the ultrasound image by referring to the probe positional information, the image type information, and the imaging feature information that are acquired (Paragraph 0049 teaches that the performance of the imaging with the order to include B-mode and the use of the probe in relation to the patient results in the display of image information that is associated to the patient physiology. See Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lundberg and Caluser with Takimoto’s teaching of assessment and confirmation that the B-mode has been passed through. This modified apparatus would allow the user to acquire patient information without operation by the user and ensuring aliasing-free information (Paragraph 0049 of Takimoto). Furthermore, the modification prevents display of an improper waveform caused by pressing the button by the operator in haste when he wants to check the entire waveform soon (Paragraph 0049 of Takimoto).
Regarding claim 16, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 14, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor acquires the image type information on the basis of tag information added to each of the plurality of ultrasound images (Paragraph 0042 teaches that the ultrasound images are imaged according to the protocol and have a corresponding scan plane. The images and the associated information is saved in the memory. Paragraph 0043 teaches the organization of the information. Paragraph 0039 teaches that the information can be personalized and stored with the associated information. See Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 17, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 15, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor acquires the image type information on the basis of tag information added to each of the plurality of ultrasound images (Paragraph 0042 teaches that the ultrasound images are imaged according to the protocol and have a corresponding scan plane. The images and the associated information is saved in the memory. Paragraph 0043 teaches the organization of the information. Paragraph 0039 teaches that the information can be personalized and stored with the associated information. See Figs. 8-9).
Regarding claim 19, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 14, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor is configured to:
extract B-mode images from the plurality of acquired ultrasound images on the basis of the image type information; and perform the analyzation of the extracted B-mode images as the ultrasound images (Paragraphs 0049-51 teach that the screen display shows the images and the scans with respect to the view and probe position. The screen display can show differing volumes. The display show differing views at the of the volume. The user input can adjust the parameters to control the cut plane and show the varying levels and obtain the desired viewpoint. Fig. 7. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the parameters can be determined and the display can be according to the input scans and the views can be adjusted. Paragraph 0027 teaches processing B-mode images).
Regarding claim 22, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 14, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the condition specified for at least one of the plurality of display regions includes a condition that an ultrasound image to be displayed in the corresponding display region is a B- mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction, and wherein the processor is configured to extract, as the ultrasound image satisfying the condition specified for the corresponding display region, the B-mode image of the same lesion part captured in the same cross-sectional direction by referring to the image type information and the plurality of sets (Paragraphs 0049-51 teach that the screen display shows the images and the scans with respect to the view and probe position. The screen display can show differing volumes. The display show differing views at the of the volume. The user input can adjust the parameters to control the cut plane and show the varying levels and obtain the desired viewpoint. Fig. 7. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the parameters can be determined and the display can be according to the input scans and the views can be adjusted. Paragraphs 0051-52 teaches that the template is the basis for the imaging. The system is able to perform the imaging and the use of the parameters according to the template. Abstract teaches the scanning is done in accordance with the protocol. Paragraph 0027 teaches processing B-mode images).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2005/0281444) in view of Caluser et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0051489) further in view of Takimoto (PGPUB No. US 2015/0359506) further in view of Kobayashi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0090855).
Regarding claim 18, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 14, as discussed above.
However, the combination of Lundberg, Caluser, and Takimoto is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the processor acquires the image type information on the basis of RGB signal values of each of the plurality of ultrasound images.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding ultrasound image acquisition in relation to probe positioning, Kobayashi teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the processor acquires the image type information on the basis of RGB signal values of each of the plurality of ultrasound images (Paragraph 0039 teaches that the images undergo an RGB conversion for the generation of the ultrasound images. The images are displayed).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lundberg, Caluser, and Takimoto with Kobayashi’s teaching of use of RGB signal values. This modified apparatus would allow the user to provide images of a predetermined resolution and frame rate (Paragraph 0039 of Kobayashi). Furthermore, the modification ensures that the operator can constantly recognize the acquisition position of the echo data (Paragraph 0159 of Kobayashi).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lundberg et al. (PGPUB No. US 2005/0281444) in view of Caluser et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0051489) further in view of Zhang et al. (PGPUB No. US 2005/0171430).
Regarding claim 23, modified Lundberg teaches the image display apparatus in claim 1, as discussed above.
Lundberg further teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the plurality of display regions include a plurality of first display regions arranged in a first row and a plurality of second display regions arranged in a second row (See Fig. 4 and 6-7).
However, the combination of Lundberg and Caluser is silent regarding an image display apparatus, wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of first display regions include a condition regarding a first orientation of the ultrasound probe,
wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of second display regions include a condition regarding a second orientation of the ultrasound probe different from the first orientation, and
wherein conditions specified for display regions arranged at different positions in a row include conditions regarding different positions of the lesion part in the ultrasound image.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding a GUI display for ultrasound imaging, Zhang teaches an image display apparatus, wherein the plurality of display regions include a plurality of first display regions arranged in a first row and a plurality of second display regions arranged in a second row, wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of first display regions include a condition regarding a first orientation of the ultrasound probe, wherein the conditions specified for the plurality of second display regions include a condition regarding a second orientation of the ultrasound probe different from the first orientation, and wherein conditions specified for display regions arranged at different positions in a row include conditions regarding different positions of the lesion part in the ultrasound image (Paragraphs 0057-58 teaches the display of the slices of the breast tissue with respect to a specific manner of orientation and displaying the images in that orientation in a row over a series of positions. Paragraph 0002 teaches that the imaging is ultrasound imaging for cancer screening).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination of Lundberg and Caluser with Zhang’s teaching of organizing a GUI. This modified apparatus would allow the user to improve cancer screening with high patient output at a low cost (Paragraph 0008 of Zhang). Furthermore, the modification provides high specificity and sensitivity (Paragraph 0007 of Zhang).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ohtake et al. (PGPUB No. US 2005/0090746): Teaches ultrasound imaging with probe pose consideration with respect to a patient body.
Chen et al. (PGPUB No. US 2010/0004539): Teaches defining a display layout and imaging in accordance with user input.
Hashimoto (PGPUB No. US 2004/0081340): Teaches defining a display layout and imaging in accordance with user input.
Yoshiara et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0141828): Teaches defining a display layout and imaging in accordance with user input.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
1 Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image
2 Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image
3 Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image
4 Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/image
5 Claim 2 depends upon claim 1.
Prosecution Insights