DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgement of Amendment
The following office action is in response to the applicant’s amendment filed on 11/25/2025. Claims 1, and 3-19 are pending. Claims 1, 6 and 18-19 have been amended. Claims 1, 3-19 are rejected for the reasons stated in the Response to Arguments and 35 U.S.C. 101 sections below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 8, filed 11/25/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 1, and 3-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 have been fully considered and are not persuasive.
The Office Action includes a rejection of claims 1 and 3-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101. Applicant traverses the rejection for the reasons advanced in detail below.
As noted above, amended claims 1 and 18 specify that the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo is included in the ultrasound image. In addition, amended claims 6 and 19 specify that the extended region corresponds to a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image. Applicant contends that these features clearly satisfy the requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
In addition, as discussed during the interview, Applicant contends that a technical problem of this application is that in a case where the region of interest is displayed with the closed rectangular frame line, it may be difficult for the user to confirm the region located at the deeper part than the detection target in the ultrasound image, which may make it difficult to easily perform an accurate diagnosis. Applicant contends that the amended claims have an advantage in solving the above technical problem against the cited references. Therefore, Applicant contends that the amended claims are not directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea without significantly more.
The examiner respectfully disagrees that the Applicant’s amendment overcomes the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101. The examiner acknowledges that the technical problem of this application is that it may be difficult for the user to confirm the region located at the deeper part than the detection target in the ultrasound image when a closed rectangular frame line is displayed. This, in turn, may make it difficult to easily perform an accurate diagnosis.
However, the examiner notes that the claims, as written, do not specify the shape of the “closed frame line”, therefore it is unclear what the Applicant intends scope of term “a closed frame line”, as written in claims 1 and 18, to represent. When interpreted broadly, this term would include a closed rectangular frame line.
Since the amended claims do not specify characteristics of the “closed frame line” (i.e. it’s shape being different from that of a rectangle, for example), the examiner respectfully asserts that the amended claims do not have an advantage in solving the above technical problem against the cited references. Furthermore, the examiner notes that the teachings of St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire and Takuya are not relevant to whether the amendment to the claims overcome the 35 U.S.C. 101 rejection. While St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire and Takuya may not teach that the region of interest has a depth range corresponding to the property of a posterior echo or a depth range corresponding to the examination mode, this fact does not impact whether the claim recites an abstract idea in the form of a mental process.
The examiner respectfully maintains that the limitations: “detect(ing) a detection target captured in an ultrasound image; detect(ing) a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image; set, on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow, or the detection target and the enhanced posterior echo, and of which an edge is represented by a closed frame line; and superimpose(ing) the first region of interest on the ultrasound image, wherein the detection target is located closer to the shallower side end of the first region of interest than deeper side end of the first region of interest” (Claims 1 and 18) represent features that can be performed by the human mind. Thus, these limitations represent a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea.
Additionally, the examiner notes that the amended claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception (i.e. abstract idea in the form of a mental process) into a practical application. Specifically, these newly added limitations do not: 1) represent an improvement to the functioning of a computer or to any other technology or technical field (see MPEP 2106.05(a)); 2) apply or use a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition (see Vanda Memo); 3) apply the judicial exception with, or by use of a particular machine (see MPEP 2106.05(b)); 4) effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing (see MPEP 2106.05(c)). Additionally, these limitations: 1) add insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; 2) merely provide instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (i.e. processor); and 3) use a computer (i.e. processor) as a tool to perform an abstract idea.
Thus, the rejection of claims 1, and 3-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 in the non-final rejection of 08/25/2025 is maintained. The examiner has updated the rejection of claims 1-19 under 35 U.S.C. 101 as stated below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks page 9-10, filed 03/27/2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive.
The Office Action includes rejections, under 35 U.S.C. § 103, of claims 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 over St. Pierre (US 2021/0015447), Lee (US 2013/0144167), and Dunmire (US 2015/0320383) and claims 4, 9, and 13 over St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire, and Takuya (W0 2020/075609A1). Applicant traverses the rejections for at least the reasons advanced in detail below.
As noted above, amended independent claim 1 recites to detect "a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image" and to set, "on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow, or the detection target and the enhanced posterior echo, and of which an edge is represented by a closed frame line." Amended independent claim 18 recites similar features. Applicant contends that the cited references fail to disclose at least these features.
As discussed during the interview, St. Pierre may describe an ultrasound system. Paras. 0035, 0037, and 0047-0058 of St. Pierre may describe: detecting a region of interest related to a scanned anatomical feature; identify the region of interest based on a brightness of an ultrasound image; and
the region of interest is a lesion or a cyst.
In addition, Lee may describe a lesion diagnostic apparatus. Paras. 0054, 0073-0075 and 0096 of Lee may describe: dividing regions of a medical image based on a lesion or an organ included in the medical image; and diagnosing the lesion within the medical image by using PASF method.
Furthermore, Dunmire may describe systems for estimating a size of an object in a subject with ultrasound. Para. 0070 of Dunmire may describe an ultrasound image including a posterior acoustic shadow of a stone.
However, Applicant contends that Dunmire merely describes an ultrasound image including a posterior acoustic shadow of a stone, but does not disclose or suggest that an edge of the region of interest is represented by a closed frame line.
The examiner respectfully acknowledges that while Dunmire may describe an ultrasound image including a posterior acoustic shadow of a stone, Dunmire does not disclose of suggest that an edge of the region of interest is represented by a closed frame line.
Moreover, the Applicant notes that Takuya may describe to set a region of interest having a rectangular shape at a depth position apart from an extracted bladder or an extracted prostate by a predetermined distance. Thus, Applicant contends that the region of interest disclosed by Takuya does not surround an extracted structure.
If Takuya were combined with St. Pierre, Lee, and Dunmire, Applicant contends that a region of interest having a rectangular shape would be set at a depth position apart from an extracted structure by a predetermined distance.
Applicant contends that the above configuration resulting from the proposed combination of St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire, and Takuya is distinguishable from the features of the amended claims, and that even a person skilled in the art would not have been able to reach the features of the amended claims based on St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire, and Takuya.
For at least the above reasons, the cited references, taken alone or in combination, fail to disclose, suggest, or otherwise render obvious the features recited in the independent claims. Thus, Applicant submits that the independent claims are allowable. Applicant further submits that the dependent claims are allowable at least by virtue of their dependence on the independent claims, and for the additional features recited. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests reconsideration and withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
The examiner recognizes that while Takuya may describe setting a region of interest having a rectangular shape at a depth position apart from an extracted bladder or an extracted prostate by a predetermined distance, this region of interest does not surround an extracted structure (i.e. the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow). The examiner agrees that if Takuya were combined with St. Pierre, Lee, and Dunmire, that a region of interest having a rectangular shape would be set at a depth position apart from an extracted structure by a predetermined distance.
The examiner acknowledges that the above configuration resulting from the proposed combination of St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire, and Takuya is distinguishable from the features of the amended claims, and that even a person skilled in the art would not have been able to reach the features of the amended claims based on St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire, and Takuya.
Therefore, the rejections of claims 1, 18 and 19 along with their corresponding dependent claims (i.e. claims 3-17, respectively) under 35 U.S.C. 103 in the non-final rejection of 08/25/2025 have been withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, and 3-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, as written they read “set(ting), on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow, or the detection target and the enhanced posterior echo, and of which an edge is represented by a closed frame line” (Claims 1 and 18).
The Applicant argues that the amended claims have an advantage in solving the technical problem of, in a case where the region of interest is displayed with the closed rectangular frame line, it may be difficult for the user to confirm the region located at the deeper part than the detection target in the ultrasound image, which may make it difficult to easily perform an accurate diagnosis.
However, the claims, as written, do not provide details defining the scope of the term “a closed frame line”. Therefore, it is unclear what characteristics (i.e. shape, size, etc.) the “closed frame line” actually possesses. Based on the Applicant’s Remarks page 8, filed 11/25/2025, it appears that the Applicant desires the “closed frame line” to have a shape that is not rectangular. The examiner would recommend amending the claim to distinctly define the scope of the term “a closed frame line”.
Regarding claims 3-17, due to their dependence on claim 1, these claims are subject to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) for the reasons stated above. Furthermore, these claims to not specify the characteristic(s) of the “closed frame line”.
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, and 3-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception in the form of an abstract idea, specifically a mental process, without significantly more.
Regarding claims 1 and 6, the examiner notes that the claims are directed to an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
With reference to Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites “detect a detection target captured in an ultrasound image, detect a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection targe, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image, set, on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow, or the detection target and the enhanced posterior echo, and of which an edge is represented by a closed frame line; and superimpose the first region of interest on the ultrasound image, wherein the detection target is located closer to the shallower side end of the first region of interest than deeper side end of the first region of interest” (Claim 1) and “input an examination mode for a captured detection target in an ultrasound image among the plurality of examination modes, and set, on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the captured detection target and that has a size of the extended region corresponding to the examination mode, wherein the extended region corresponds to a posterior acoustic shadow and the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image” (Claim 6).
The limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and/or read on viewing an ultrasound image to detect a detection target and a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, and inputting/setting a region of interest that has a depth range corresponding to the posterior acoustic shadow/echo. In this case, a user can view an ultrasound image to detect/analyze a property of a posterior echo of the detection target and draw/input/set a region of interest (i.e. with a pencil, stylus, etc.). If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a processor), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Following step 2A, Prong Two of the two-prong analysis, the claims recite the following additional elements: “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus” and “a processor”. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim as written does not include elements to 1) improve the functioning of a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(a)); 2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)); 3) use a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)); 4) use the judicial exceptions in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Following step 2B, the additional element(s) (i.e. “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus” and “a processor”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception the these elements represent conventional tools (i.e. ultrasound apparatus/probe, processing circuitry) to perform well understood, routine and conventional activity (i.e. detecting/analyzing a detection target and setting a region of interest within the anatomy of a patient, see [0042], [0043], [0053] and FIG. 1 in Lee et al. US 2013/0144167 A1 “Lee”) in the field, to perform the abstract idea.
Regarding claims 3-10, and 12-17, the claims add additional limitations that append the judgement of claim 1 and/or do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, nor a practical application of the judicial exception because they disclose:
steps that can be practically performed within the mind (i.e. as a mental processing involving steps of: a) setting a first region of interest for the detection target, setting a second region of interest, see claim 3; b) setting a first region of interest for a feces, setting a second region of interest for an empty rectum, see claim 4; c) setting a first region of interest for a cyst, setting a second region of interest […] for a tumor, see claim 5).;
provide additional information about the location/characteristics of the region of interest (i.e. “the first region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target is located in an upper part within the first region of interest, the second region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target is located in a central part within the second region of interest”, see claims 8-11); “the first region of interest has a length in a depth direction of at least 2 times and no more than 5 times a length of the detection target, and the second region of interest has a length in depth direction of at least 1 time and less than 2 times the length of the detection target”, see claims 12-15.);
provide additional information about the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (i.e. “further comprising: an ultrasound probe; wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the ultrasound image using the ultrasound probe”, see claims 16-17).
Regarding claims 18 and 19, the examiner notes that the claims are directed to a control method for an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus. Therefore, the claims fall within one of the statutory categories of invention.
With reference to Step 2A, Prong One, the claim recites “detecting a detection target captured in an ultrasound image, detecting a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image, setting, on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow, or the detection target and the enhanced posterior echo, and of which an edge is represented by a closed frame line; and superimposing the first region of interest on the ultrasound image, wherein the detection target is located closer to the shallower side end of the first region of interest than deeper side end of the first region of interest” (Claims 18) and “inputting an examination mode for a captured detection target in an ultrasound image, among the plurality of examination modes; and setting, on the ultrasound image, the region of interest that includes the captured detection target and that has a size of the extended region corresponding to the input examination mode, wherein the extended region corresponds to a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, the posterior acoustic shadow or the enhanced posterior echo being included in the ultrasound image” (Claim 19).
The limitations, under broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation in the mind and/or read on viewing an ultrasound image to detect a detection target and a posterior acoustic shadow of the detection target or an enhanced posterior echo of the detection target, inputting/setting a region of interest that has a depth range corresponding to the property of a posterior echo. In this case, a user can view an ultrasound image to detect/identify a posterior echo of the detection target and draw/set a region of interest (i.e. with a pencil, stylus, etc.). If a claim limitation under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components (i.e. a processor), then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
Following step 2A, Prong Two of the two-prong analysis, the claims recite the following additional elements: “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus”. These additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because the claim as written does not include elements to 1) improve the functioning of a computer (See MPEP 2106.05(a)); 2) effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis (See MPEP 2106.04(d)(2)); 3) use a particular machine (See MPEP 2106.05(b)); 4) use the judicial exceptions in a meaningful way beyond generally linking the use to a particular technological environment (See MPEP 2106.05(h)).
Following step 2B, the additional element(s) (i.e. “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus”) do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception the these elements represent conventional tools (i.e. ultrasound apparatus/probe, processing circuitry) to perform well understood, routine and conventional activity (i.e. detecting/analyzing a detection target and setting a region of interest within the anatomy of a patient, see [0042], [0043], [0053] and FIG. 1 in Lee et al. US 2013/0144167 A1 “Lee”) in the field, to perform the abstract idea.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1, and 3-18 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claims 1 and 18, the claims recite “set(ting), on the ultrasound image, a first region of interest that includes the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow, or the detection target and the enhanced posterior echo, and of which an edge is represented by a closed frame line” (Claims 1 and 18).
However, as stated in the 35 U.S.C. 112 section above, the claims, as written, do not provide details defining the scope of the term “a closed frame line”. Therefore, it is unclear what characteristics (i.e. shape, size, etc.) the “closed frame line” actually possesses.
In spite of this, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre describes an ultrasound system. Paras. 0035, 0037, and 0047-0058 of St. Pierre may describe: detecting a region of interest related to a scanned anatomical feature; identify the region of interest based on a brightness of an ultrasound image; and the region of interest is a lesion or a cyst. In addition, Lee describes a lesion diagnostic apparatus. Paras. 0054, 0073-0075 and 0096 of Lee may describe: dividing regions of a medical image based on a lesion or an organ included in the medical image; and diagnosing the lesion within the medical image by using PASF method. Furthermore, Dunmire describes systems for estimating a size of an object in a subject with ultrasound. Para. 0070 of Dunmire may describe an ultrasound image including a posterior acoustic shadow of a stone.
However, the examiner agrees that Dunmire merely describes an ultrasound image including a posterior acoustic shadow of a stone, but does not disclose or suggest that an edge of the region of interest is represented by a closed frame line.
Furthermore, the examiner acknowledges that while Takuya may describe setting a region of interest having a rectangular shape at a depth position apart from an extracted bladder or an extracted prostate by a predetermined distance, this region of interest does not surround an extracted structure (i.e. the detection target and the posterior acoustic shadow). The examiner agrees that if Takuya were combined with St. Pierre, Lee, and Dunmire, that a region of interest having a rectangular shape would be set at a depth position apart from an extracted structure by a predetermined distance.
Therefore, the prior art references of record, both alone or in combination, do not teach the above limitation in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 18.
Additionally, an updated search was conducted in which no prior art references were found to teach the above limitation(s) individually or in combination with the other limitations of claims 1 and 18.
Therefore, claims 1 and 18 along with their corresponding dependent claims (i.e. claims 3-17, respectively) would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 35 U.S.C. 101 set forth in this office action.
Claims 6-7, 11, 15, 17 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 as set forth in this Office action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claims 6 and 19, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre teaches “An ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: a processor configured to” (Claim 6) (“FIG. 1A depicts an example of a system 100 including an ultrasound device 101 connected to a wireless computing device 110 on which the disclosed ultrasound workflow tool operates. […] The ultrasound device 101 includes an ultrasound probe 102 that includes an ultrasonic transducer 102” [0035] and “As shown, the ultrasonic transducer 104 is operatively connected to a wireless computing device 110. The wireless computing device 110 may be a part of a computing system, including processors and memory configured to produce and analyze ultrasound images. […] The wireless computing device 110 is configured to display ultrasound images based on an ultrasound imaging of a patient” [0037]. Therefore, St. Pierre discloses an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising a processor (i.e. computing device 110).); and
“A control method for an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, comprising:” (Claim 19) (See FIG. 2A and its corresponding paragraphs [0047]-[0058]);
“input(ting) an examination mode for a captured detection target in an ultrasound image, among the plurality of examination modes” (Claims 6 and 19) (“FIG. 2A depicts an example method 200 for facilitating performing a diagnostic scan using the disclosed ultrasound workflow tool. […] The method 200 begins at operation 202 in which the ultrasound workflow tool displays a prompt to select a workflow from among a plurality of workflows. […] In one example, the prompt displayed is a drop down menu or some other suitable menu used to select one of a plurality of workflows associated with a procedure” [0047] and “At operation 204, the ultrasound workflow tool receives a selection of a diagnostic workflow, related to a diagnostic breast exam” [0048]. Therefore, since the method prompts a user to select a workflow (i.e. from a drop down menu for instance), and the method receives the selection of the diagnostic workflow, processor of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus in configured to input an examination mode for a detection target captured in an ultrasound image.);
However, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre does not teach “store(ing) in advance, with relating each other, a plurality of examination modes corresponding to a plurality of detection targets, and a plurality of sizes of an extended region occupying between each of the plurality of detection targets and a deeper side end of a region of interest” (Claims 6 and 19); or “set(ting), on the ultrasound image, the first region of interest that includes the captured detection target and has a size of the extended region corresponding to the examination mode” (Claims 6 and 19).
Additionally, the examiner acknowledges that the prior art references of Lee, Dunmire and Takuya, both alone or in combination, do not teach the above limitations.
Furthermore, no prior art references were found to teach the above limitations both alone or in combination with the other limitations of claims 6 and 19.
Therefore, claims 6 and 19 are allowable.
Regarding claim 7, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Lee, and Dunmire do not teach “wherein the processor is further configured to set the first region of interest for the examination mode indicating a feces inside a rectum as the detection target or a cyst as the detection target, and set a second region of interest of which a position relative to the detection target is different from that of the first region of interest for the examination mode indicating an empty rectum as the detection target or a tumor as the detection target”.
Takuya is within the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention because it involves an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus used for evaluating rectal feces of a subject (see Page 2: Technical-Field).
Takuya teaches “wherein the processor is further configured to set the first region of interest for the examination mode indicating a feces inside a rectum as the detection target or a cyst as the detection target, and set a second region of interest of which a position relative to the detection target is different from that of the first region of interest for the examination mode indicating an empty rectum as the detection target or a tumor as the detection target” (“FIG. 1 shows the configuration of the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1” [Page 2, Embodiment 1, Line 1]; “a region of interest setting unit 20” [Page 3, Lines 1-2]; “Furthermore, the display control unit 15, the image acquisition unit 17, the bladder extraction unit 18, the prostate extraction unit 19, the attention area setting unit 22, the image quality adjustment unit 21, the rectal feces evaluation unit 22, and the device control unit 23 configure a processor 26” [Page 3, Para. 3, Lines 1-3]; “The rectal stool evaluation unit 22 of the processor 26 performs rectal stool evaluation based on the ultrasonic image acquired by the image acquisition unit 17 according to the ultrasonic wave transmission/reception conditions adjusted by the image quality adjustment unit 21. Specifically, the rectal stool evaluation unit 22 performs image analysis on the ultrasonic image and evaluates whether the stool existing in the rectum of the subject is soft stool or hard stool” [Page 5, Para. 2, Lines 1-5] and “Further, as shown in FIGS. 5 and 6, the attention setting unit 20 sets attention areas A1 and A2 over the entire lateral direction of the ultrasonic image U” [Page 8, Para. 3, Lines 1-2].
Therefore, since the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 1 includes a region of interest/attention setting unit 20 which sets attention areas (i.e. A1 and A2) and a rectal feces evaluation unit 22 which performs rectal stool evaluation on the ultrasonic image acquired by the image acquisition unit 17, the processor (i.e. processor 26, see [Page 3, Para. 3, Lines 1-3]), is further configured to set a first region of interest for a feces inside a rectum which is the detection target, and set a second region of interest of which a position relative from that of the first region of interest for an empty rectum which is the detection target. Furthermore, the processor is further configured to set a first region of interest for the examination mode indicating a feces inside a rectum as the detection target or a cyst as the detection target (i.e. specifically feces inside a rectum), and set a second region of interest of which a position relative to the detection target is different from that of the first region of interest for the examination mode indicating an empty rectum as the detection target or a tumor as the detection target (i.e. specifically an empty rectum).).
However, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire and Takuya do not teach the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim depends.
Therefore, claim 7 is allowable.
Regarding claim 11, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Dunmire and Takuya do not teach “wherein the first region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target is located in an upper part within the first region of interest, and the second region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target is located in a central part within the second region of interest”.
Lee teaches “wherein the first region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target is located in an upper part within the first region of interest, and the second region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target is located in a central part within the second region of interest” (“In the example of FIG. 3, “A” represents a diagnostic target lesion, “B” and “C” represent lesions on the periphery of the diagnostic target lesion and “D” represents an organ” [0054]; “Meanwhile, a region `a` represents a diagnostic region including a diagnostic target lesion, regions `b` and `c` represent regions each including lesions that are on the periphery of the diagnostic target lesion, a region `d` represents a region including an organ, and regions `e,` `f,` `g,` and `h` represent rear regions of regions. Each of the rear regions of regions include lesions on the periphery of the diagnostic target lesion” [0056].
As shown in FIG. 3, region ‘a’ is located in the corners of the box containing the diagnostic target lesion A. Thus, the first region of interest (i.e. ‘a’ is a region having a position relative to the detection target (i.e. diagnostic target lesion A) such that the detection target (i.e. lesion A) is located in central part within the region of interest (i.e. its diameter spans the whole box containing region ‘a’). The region ‘a’ in this case is not excluded by the region determination unit 310, thus it has a detection target in which an enhancement of the posterior echo of the detection target is less than the predetermined level. Furthermore, as shown in FIG. 3, region c is a rear region of the diagnostic target lesion A (i.e. lesion A being in an upper part of the box containing region c) and is excluded by the region determination unit 310 because the enhancement of the posterior echo of the detection target is equal to or greater than the predetermined level (see [0057] and [0058]).
Therefore the first region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target such that the detection target (i.e. lesion A) is located in an upper part within the first region of interest (i.e. region c), and the second region of interest is a region having a position relative to the detection target (i.e. lesion A) such that the detection target is located in a central part within the second region of interest (i.e. region a).).
However, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire and Takuya do not teach the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim indirectly depends.
Therefore, claim 11 is allowable.
Regarding claim 15, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Dunmire and Takuya do not teach “wherein the first region of interest has a length in a depth direction of at least 2 times and no more than 5 times a length of the detection target in the depth direction, and the second region of interest has a length in the depth direction of at least 1 time and less than 2 times the length of the detection target in the depth direction”.
Lee teaches “wherein the first region of interest has a length in a depth direction of at least 2 times and no more than 5 times a length of the detection target in the depth direction, and the second region of interest has a length in the depth direction of at least 1 time and less than 2 times the length of the detection target in the depth direction” (See FIG. 3 in Lee. As shown in FIG. 3, the box containing regions b, e, a, f and an unlabeled box has a length in a depth direction of at least 2 times and no more than 5 times a length of the detection target (i.e. lesion A). Additionally the box containing the region f has a length in a depth direction of at least 1 time and less than 2 times the length of the detection target.).
However, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire and Takuya do not teach the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim indirectly depends.
Therefore, claim 15 is allowable.
Regarding claim 17, the examiner notes that St. Pierre teaches “further comprising: an ultrasound probe, and wherein the processor is further configured to acquire the ultrasound image using the ultrasound probe” (See [0035] and [0037] as discussed in claims 1 and 6 above. In order for the computing device 110 to display ultrasound images, the computing device 110 must obtain ultrasound image data from the ultrasound probe. Therefore, the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus further comprises an ultrasound probe (i.e. 102), and wherein the processor (i.e. wireless computing device 110) is further configured to acquire the ultrasound image using the ultrasound probe.).
However, the examiner acknowledges that St. Pierre, Lee, Dunmire and Takuya do not teach the limitations of claim 6 on which this claim indirectly depends.
Therefore, claim 17 is allowable.
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN whose telephone number is (571)272-6190. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.- Fri. 7:30-4:30 (Alternate Fridays Off).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne M Kozak can be reached on (571) 270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/KAITLYN E SEBASTIAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3797