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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 8-9 and 11, 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticiapted by Callcut et al. (US 20220293243).
Regarding claim 9, Callcut teaches a system comprising one or more processors and non-transitory computer storage media storing instructions that when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform operations comprising:
obtaining medical images associated with a patient, the medical images being ultrasound images depicting different portions of the patient, and the ultrasound images forming video of the different portions (p0034: the sonogram is a low-resolution sonogram obtained using a portable ultrasound machine, fig. 1 and [0063] FIG. 10);
providing the medical images to a machine learning model (p0030:machine learning system trained for analyzing a sonogram of a patient's abdomen…),
wherein a forward pass through the machine learning model is computed, and wherein the machine learning model is trained to output for each input medical image (107-109: receives learning data comprising a plurality of unannotated sonograms and annotated versions.. trains… stores…), a bounding box about free fluid depicted in the input medical image and a confidence score associated with detection of the free fluid in the bounding box (p062: Detection Module 220 performs detection of objects of interest in image/video data, including but not limited to, anatomical structures and free fluid); and determining that the patient has free fluid based on analyzing output from the machine learning model (p0062:Output images may contain one or more raw images along with annotations or image masks depicting relevant features, including but not limited to, anatomical structures and free fluid and p0074:determine presence or absence of free fluid in the patient's abdomen is disclosed).
Regarding claim 1, The structural elements of apparatus claim 9 perform all of the steps of method claim 1. Thus, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, Callcut teaches the system of claim 15, wherein the interactive user interface further presents information identifying a portion of the patient which has free fluid (p0044:displayed at image display unit).
Regarding claim 8, The structural elements of apparatus claim 16 perform all of the steps of method claim 8. Thus, claim 8 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 16.
Claim 17 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 1 and in accordance with Callcut’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0047).
Regarding claim 11, Callcut teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the machine learning model is a convolutional neural network (p0067:convolutional neural network).
Regarding claim 3, The structural elements of apparatus claim 11 perform all of the steps of method claim 3. Thus, claim 3 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callcut as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Abolmaesumi et al. (US 20200069292)
Regarding claim 10, Callcut does not teaches the system of claim 9, wherein the ultrasound images depict the left upper quadrant, right upper quadrant, or the patient's heart.
Abolmaesumi teaches wherein the ultrasound images depict the left upper quadrant, right upper quadrant, or the patient's heart (0110).
Callcut and Abolmaesumi are combinable because they both deal with medical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Callcut with the teaching of Abolmaesumi for providing a computer-implemented method of facilitating ultrasonic image analysis of a subject (p0004).
Regarding claim 2, The structural elements of apparatus claim 10 perform all of the steps of method claim 2. Thus, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 2.
Claims 4-5, 12-13 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callcut as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Yao et al. (US 20250061574)
Regarding claim 12, Callcut teaches the system of claim 9, wherein a particular medical image has two bounding boxes assigned by the machine learning model (p062: bounding boxes around them, including but not limited to, anatomical structures and free fluid) , but does not teach wherein one of the bounding boxes associated with a higher confidence score is used to determine that the patient has free fluid.
Yao teaches wherein one of the bounding boxes associated with a higher confidence score is used to determine that the patient has free fluid (p0158: a higher threshold for the confidence score may be used to exclude pathology other than nGA).
Callcut and Yao are combinable because they both deal with medical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Callcut with the teaching of Yao for systems that facilitate the consistent, accurate, and quick analyses of large amounts of medical images such as OCT images for use in the diagnosis, monitoring and treatment of patients (p0003).
Regarding claim 13, Callcut in view of Yao teaches the system of claim 9, wherein determining that the patient has free fluid comprises determining that a highest confidence score associated with the medical images exceeds a confidence score threshold (p0145: A higher confidence score may imply a higher probability that the detected region within a bounding box covers nascent geographic atrophy lesions.).
The rational applied to the rejection of claim 12 has been incorporated herein.
Regarding claim 4, The structural elements of apparatus claim 12 perform all of the steps of method claim 4. Thus, claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 12.
Regarding claim 5, The structural elements of apparatus claim 12 perform all of the steps of method claim 5. Thus, claim 5 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 13.
Claim 18 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 12 and in accordance with Callcut’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0047).
Claim 19 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 13 and in accordance with Callcut’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0047).
Claims 14 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callcut in view of Yao as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Danielsson et al. (US 20230086993).
Regarding claim 14, Callcut in view of Yao does not teach the system of claim 13, wherein each portion of the patient is associated with a different confidence score threshold.
Danielsson teaches wherein each portion of the patient is associated with a different confidence score threshold (p0016:The fine-tuning of the confidence score thresholds in coherent regions comprises generating segmentation masks using different confidence score thresholds).
Callcut in view of Yao and Danielsson are combinable because they both deal with medical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Callcut in view of Yao with the teaching of Danielsson for providing segmentation masks that indicate individual instances of one or more object classes with respect to processing speed and segmentation precision (p0014).
Regarding claim 6, The structural elements of apparatus claim 14 perform all of the steps of method claim 6. Thus, claim 6 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 14.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Callcut as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Bhowmick et al. (US 20230038364)
Regarding claim 15, Callcut does not teach the system of claim 9, further comprising presenting an interactive user interface, wherein the interactive user interface presents summary information including a graphical depiction of a particular medical image associated with a highest confidence value.
Bhowmick teaches further comprising presenting an interactive user interface, wherein the interactive user interface presents summary information including a graphical depiction of a particular medical image associated with a highest confidence value (p0027:the output may be visualized by outputting the medical image and/or the cropped image, and displaying the bounding boxes having the highest confidence score).
Callcut and Bhowmick are combinable because they both deal with medical system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to combine the teachings of Callcut with the teaching of Bhowmick for providing better user experence.
Regarding claim 7, The structural elements of apparatus claim 15 perform all of the steps of method claim 7. Thus, claim 7 is rejected for the same reasons discussed in the rejection of claim 15.
Claim 20 has been analyzed and rejected with regard to claim 15 and in accordance with Callcut’s further teaching on: A computer-readable memory that contains instructions, which when executed by a processor perform steps in a method (p0047).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HELEN Q ZONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1600. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-6.
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, Merouan, Abderrahim. can be reached on ( (571) 270-5254. 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.
HELEN ZONG
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2683
/HELEN ZONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681