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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-3, 6-11 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities. Appropriate correction is required.
In claim 2, line 2, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “position information”. In line 2, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “center position information”.
In claim 6, line 5, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “X-axis position movement”. In lines 5-6, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “Y-axis position movement”.
In claim 7, it appears this claim should be depended upon claim 6 to provide proper antecedent basis for the phrases “the irradiation position” in lines 3-4 and “the imaging position” in lines 4-5.
In claim 13, line 9, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “position information”. In line 9, the word -- a -- should be inserted before the phrase “center position information”.
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 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Claim 12 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for controlling an ultrasonic irradiation device, the method performed by a control apparatus comprising: receiving an input of a first offset distance value between an ultrasonic probe and a marker, and receiving an input of a second offset distance value between an ultrasonic irradiation module and a camera; receiving a first distance value, a second distance value, or a third distance value between a center position of a camera and a position of the marker in an image of an irradiation area obtained from the camera; and calculating a moving position based on the first offset distance value, the second offset distance value, the first distance value, and the second distance value.
Claim 13 is copied below, with the limitations belonging to an abstract idea being underlined.
A method for controlling an ultrasonic irradiation device, the method performed by a control apparatus comprising: receiving an input of a first offset distance value between an ultrasonic probe and a marker, and receiving an input of a second offset distance value between an ultrasonic irradiation module and a camera; receiving a first distance value, a second distance value, or a third distance value between a center position of a camera and a position of the marker in an image of an irradiation area obtained from the camera; matching position information of the marker to center position information of the camera based on the first distance value, the second distance value, or the third distance value; and calculating a moving position based on the first offset distance value and the second offset distance value.
The limitations underlined can be considered to describe a mathematical concept, namely a series of calculations leading to one or more numerical results or answers, obtained by a sequence of mathematical operations on numbers. The lack of a specific equation in the claim merely points out that the claim would monopolize all possible appropriate equations for accomplishing this purpose in all possible systems. These steps recited by the claim therefore amount to a series of mental and/or mathematical steps, making these limitations amount to an abstract idea.
In summary, the highlighted steps in the claim above therefore recite an abstract idea at Prong 1 of the 101 analysis.
The additional elements in the claim have been left in normal font.
The additional limitations in relation to the computer, computer product, or computer system does not offer a meaningful limitation beyond generally linking the use of the method to a computer (see ALICE CORP. V. CLS BANK INT'L 573 U.S. (2014)). The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea.
The claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. Various considerations are used to determine whether the additional elements are sufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The claim does not recite a particular machine applying or being used by the abstract idea. The claim does not effect a real-world transformation or reduction of any particular article to a different state or thing. (Manipulating data from one form to another or obtaining a mathematical answer using input data does not qualify as a transformation in the sense of Prong 2.)
The claim does not contain additional elements which describe the functioning of a computer, or which describe a particular technology or technical field, being improved by the use of the abstract idea. (This is understood in the sense of the claimed invention from Diamond V Diehr, in which the claim as a whole recited a complete rubber-curing process including a rubber-molding press, a timer, a temperature sensor adjacent the mold cavity, and the steps of closing and opening the press, in which the recited use of a mathematical calculation served to improve that particular technology by providing a better estimate of the time when curing was complete. Here, the claim does not recite carrying out any comparable particular technological process.) In all of these respects, the claim fails to recite additional elements which might possibly integrate the claim into a particular practical application. Instead, based on the above considerations, the claim would tend to monopolize the abstract idea itself, rather than integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2b of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine whether the additional elements cause the claim to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The considerations for this particular claim are essentially the same as the considerations for Prong 2 of Step 2a, and the same analysis leads to the conclusion that the claim does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. Therefore, claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the
basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Publication “Robotic 3D Position Control of Therapeutic Ultrasonic Field By Ultrasound Image Information” by Irisawa et al..
With regards to claim 1, Irisawa et al. discloses a position control system by ultrasound image information comprising an apparatus for controlling an ultrasonic irradiation device (e.g. system of Figure 4) comprising a memory (e.g. memory deemed necessary to store “planning software”; page 2, column 2, lines 2-11); a communication module configured to perform communication with the ultrasonic irradiation device (e.g. communication module deemed necessary for echogram sent to planning software and “displayed in interface”; page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; Figures 4-5); a processor configured to control the ultrasonic irradiation device (e.g. processor deemed necessary to “controls the focus position and a probe calibration matrix”; page 2, column 2, lines 10-11; Figures 4-5); the processor is configured to calculate a moving position (e.g. page 2, column2, lines 8-10) based on a first offset distance value OD1 between an ultrasonic probe (e.g. labeled “US probe” in Figure 4) and a marker stored in the memory (e.g. labeled “Tracking information of US probe” in Figure 5; page 2, column 2, lines 2-8); a second offset distance value OD2 between an ultrasonic irradiation module (e.g. labeled “US imaging device” in Figure 4) and a camera stored in the memory (e.g. labeled “tracking sensor” in Figures 4-5 where estimation of this value is inherent in the use of an optical location system like optical tracking device indicated in the Abstract); a first distance value D1, a second distance value D2, or a third distance value D3 between a center position of the camera and a position of the marker in an image of an irradiation area obtained from the camera through the communication module (e.g. the distance values are information usually obtained by means of an optical location system and scheduling software). (See, pages 1-4).
With regards to claim 2, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is configured to match position information of the marker and center position information of the camera based on the first distance value, the second distance value, or the third distance value. (See, page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; Figures 4-5).
With regards to claim 3, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is configured to control and move a moving part of the ultrasonic irradiation device through the communication module or control and move a bed through the communication module to match the position information of the marker to the center position information of the camera. (See, block element “control the position and direction of transducer” in Figure 5; page 2, column 2, lines 10-11; Figures 4-5).
With regards to claim 5, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is configured to control and move a moving part of the ultrasonic irradiation device through the communication module, or control a movement of a bed through the communication module based on the calculated moving position such that the ultrasonic irradiation module moves to the calculated moving position. (See, page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; Figures 4-5).
With regards to claim 6, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is configured to receive an input of the first offset distance value and the second offset distance value through a correction and store the first offset distance value and the second offset distance value in the memory; control a movement of the bed along X-axis position movement and Y-axis position movement of the bed associated with the first offset distance value and the second offset distance value to match an irradiation position of the ultrasonic irradiation module to an imaging position of the ultrasonic probe. (See, page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; Figures 4-5).
With regards to claim 7, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is further configured to control an alarm module of the ultrasonic irradiation device to notify a situation of being able to irradiate ultrasound of the ultrasonic irradiation device based on the irradiation position of the ultrasonic irradiation module coinciding with the imaging position of the ultrasonic probe (e.g. implicit in view of the disclosure in pages 1-4).
With regards to claim 8, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is further configured to control the ultrasonic irradiation module of the ultrasonic irradiation device to irradiate ultrasound of the ultrasonic irradiation device based on the irradiation position of the ultrasonic irradiation module coinciding with the imaging position of the ultrasonic probe (e.g. implicit in view of the disclose in pages 1-4).
With regards to claim 9, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is further configured to receive an approach distance to a human body obtained from a sensing module of the ultrasonic irradiation device; control the ultrasonic irradiation module to irradiate ultrasound differently with a predetermined intensity, which is associated with each of target distances, when the approach distance is a predetermined target distance. (See, page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; page 3, column 1 under “B. Plan Following Control” and “C. Probe Following Control”; Figures 4-5,7).
With regards to claim 10, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is further configured to receive a tumor position of an internal organ of a human body obtained from a sensing module of the ultrasonic irradiation device; control the ultrasonic irradiation module to irradiate ultrasound differently with a predetermined intensity, which is associated with each of target positions, when the tumor position is a predetermined target position. (See, page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; page 3, column 1 under “B. Plan Following Control” and “C. Probe Following Control”; Figures 4-5,7).
With regards to claim 11, Irisawa et al. further discloses the processor is further configured to receive a tumor size of an internal organ of a human body obtained from a sensing module of the ultrasonic irradiation device; control the ultrasonic irradiation module to irradiate ultrasound differently with a predetermined intensity, which is associated with each of target sizes, when the tumor size is a predetermined target size. (See, page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; page 3, column 1 under “B. Plan Following Control” and “C. Probe Following Control”; Figures 4-5,7).
With regards to claim 12, Irisawa et al. discloses a position control system by ultrasound image information comprising a method for controlling an ultrasonic irradiation device (e.g. system of Figure 4) performed by a control apparatus (e.g. control apparatus deemed necessary to “controls the focus position and a probe calibration matrix”; page 2, column 2, lines 10-11; Figures 4-5) comprising receiving an input of a first offset distance value OD1 between an ultrasonic probe (e.g. labeled “US probe” in Figure 4) and a marker (e.g. labeled “Tracking information of US probe” in Figure 5; page 2, column 2, lines 2-8); receiving an input of a second offset distance value OD2 between an ultrasonic irradiation module (e.g. labeled “US imaging device” in Figure 4) and a camera (e.g. labeled “tracking sensor” in Figures 4-5 where estimation of this value is inherent in the use of an optical location system like optical tracking device indicated in the Abstract); receiving a first distance value D1, a second distance value D2, or a third distance value D3 between a center position of a camera and a position of the marker in an image of an irradiation area obtained from the camera (e.g. the distance values are information usually obtained by means of an optical location system and scheduling software); calculating a moving position based on the first offset distance value, the second offset distance value, the first distance value, and the second distance value (e.g. page 2, column 2, lines 2-1; Figure 4-5). (See, pages 1-4).
With regards to claim 13, Irisawa et al. discloses a position control system by ultrasound image information comprising a method for controlling an ultrasonic irradiation device (e.g. system of Figure 4) performed by a control apparatus (e.g. control apparatus deemed necessary to “controls the focus position and a probe calibration matrix”; page 2, column 2, lines 10-11; Figures 4-5) comprising receiving an input of a first offset distance value OD1 between an ultrasonic probe (e.g. labeled “US probe” in Figure 4) and a marker (e.g. labeled “Tracking information of US probe” in Figure 5; page 2, column 2, lines 2-8); receiving an input of a second offset distance value OD2 between an ultrasonic irradiation module (e.g. labeled “US imaging device” in Figure 4) and a camera (e.g. labeled “tracking sensor” in Figures 4-5 where estimation of this value is inherent in the use of an optical location system like optical tracking device indicated in the Abstract); receiving a first distance value D1, a second distance value D2, or a third distance value D3 between a center position of a camera and a position of the marker in an image of an irradiation area obtained from the camera (e.g. the distance values are information usually obtained by means of an optical location system and scheduling software);
matching position information of the marker to center position information of the camera based on the first distance value, the second distance value, or the third distance value (e.g. page 2, column 2, lines 2-11; Figures 4-5); calculating a moving position based on the first offset distance value and the second offset distance value (e.g. page 2, column 2, lines 8-10). (See, pages 1-4).
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Publication “Robotic 3D Position Control of Therapeutic Ultrasonic Field By Ultrasound Image Information” by Irisawa et al..
With regards to claim 4, Irisawa et al. does not disclose the processor is further configured to calculate a moving position of the ultrasonic irradiation module based on a sensing distance obtained from a sensing module of the ultrasonic irradiation device through the communication module such that a distance between the ultrasonic irradiation module and the ultrasonic probe or a distance between the ultrasonic irradiation module and a human body is maintained at a predetermined distance.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have readily recognize the advantages and desirability of employing a processor to perform such parameters and computation characteristics as in the claim are considered to have been one of several options that an operator and/or manufacturer would select, as appropriate, from among several obvious possibilities in order to solve the problem to have the ability to provide an enhanced and efficient ultrasound system that requires accurate position control of therapeutic ultrasound field based on ultrasound image information.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The references cited, particularly Kim, Oh, Nakajima, Kono, Yashuda and Turner, are related to ultrasonic imaging probe system comprising a controller to control an ultrasonic irradiation device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Helen C Kwok whose telephone number is (571)272-2197. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 7:30 to 4:00 EST.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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 C KWOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855