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 .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2021/0030486) in view of Gran et al. (US 2019/0380786, of record).
Regarding claim 1, Zhang shows an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (system 10, [0018] and figs. 1 - 2) comprising:
a camera (camera 18, [0020] - [0021]);
a display (“HMD 11 … image display device”, [0019]);
an ultrasonic probe (“probe 19 … ultrasound image”, [0022]); and
processing circuitry (processing device 16, [0041]) configured to:
acquire an appearance image depicting a body surface of an object, the appearance image being imaged by the camera (“camera image of the real space to be the background of the composite image…”, [0020] - [0021]),
acquire an echo signal acquired by a scan of the object with the ultrasonic probe (“beam scanning … generate an ultrasound image”, [0022]) and positional information indicating a position where the scan is performed by the ultrasonic probe to associate the echo signal and the positional information with each other (“position information specifying means 35 … specifies three-dimensional position information about the probe 19 when superimposing a diagnostic image … camera image of the real space…”, [0042]),
acquire a three-dimensional (3D) ultrasonic image based on the associated echo signal and the positional information (“beam scanning … ultrasound image… tomographic”, [0022]),
generate a composite image depicting anatomical information on the body surface of the object based on the appearance image and the ultrasonic image (“composite image generating means 37 generates a composite image … position information about the probe 19 … superimposed image ...”, [0070]), and
cause the display to display the generated composite image (“displays… composite image”, [0018]).
Zhang is silent as to whether or not the depicted anatomical information in the composite image comprises a blood vessel.
Gran discloses a combination ultrasound/optical image for an image guided procedure. Gran teaches depicted anatomical information, in a composite image, that comprises a blood vessel (“… 3-D model of the vasculature … overlaid over an optical image…”, [0015]).
It would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Zhang to have the depicted anatomical information in the composite image comprise a blood vessel, as taught by Gran, in order to provide image guidance on the location of vasculature so that the surgeon can avoid/minimize damaging the vasculature, as suggested by Gran ([0015]).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Gran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harris et al. (US 2012/0190981, of record).
Regarding claim 2, the combined invention of Zhang and Gran discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Zhang further shows generating a plurality of frame images depicting an inside of the object from the echo signal (“beam scanning … tomographic”, [0022]),
Zhang fails to show using the ultrasonic image to calculate blood vessel data that include a blood-vessel diameter, a vascular depth from a body surface, and a distance to another blood vessel shown in the plurality of frame images; and displaying a specified recommended puncture position from the blood vessel shown in the plurality of frame images based on the blood vessel data.
Harris discloses intravenous insertion systems. Harris teaches using an ultrasonic image (“ultrasound image of the vessel…”, [0053] - [0054]; “ultrasound image data … binary images … to determine their depth and diameter”, [0156]) to calculate blood vessel data that a include blood-vessel diameter, a vascular depth from a body surface, and a distance to another blood vessel (“ … depth of the vessel underneath the skin surface”, [0157]; “… diameter, … position relative to other veins, … determine the best targets for intravenous needle insertion“, [0191] - [0192]); and displaying a specified recommended puncture position from a blood vessel based on the blood vessel data (“ … ranks the best veins, and presents them to the user in a highly distinguishable manner …”, [0143]; “… suggests potential target insertion sites to the user by placing bounding boxes 135 around the sites …”, [0167] and figs. 25 - 27).
It would have been obvious to have modified the invention of Zhang to include using the ultrasonic image to calculate blood vessel data that include a blood-vessel diameter, a vascular depth from a body surface, and a distance to another blood vessel shown in the plurality of frame images; and displaying a specified recommended puncture position from the blood vessel shown in the plurality of frame images based on the blood vessel data, as taught by Harris, in order to help a user verify vasculature location relative to a medical instrument.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harris and Zhang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 2022/0104789, of record).
Regarding claim 3, the combined invention of Harris and Zhang discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Zhang fails to show extracting a blood-vessel image from the ultrasonic image, and color-coding the blood-vessel image depending on blood-vessel diameter and vascular depth from a body surface.
Matsumoto discloses an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus. Matsumoto teaches color-coding a blood-vessel image depending on blood-vessel diameter and vascular depth from a body surface (“blood vessel regions … extracted … different colors … according to the depth or size”, [0084] - [0086]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Zhang and Gran to include extracting a blood-vessel image from the ultrasonic image, and color-coding the blood-vessel image depending on blood-vessel diameter and vascular depth from a body surface, as taught by Matsumoto, in order to allow the user to intuitively and accurately grasp the blood vessel as the observation target, as suggested by Matsumoto ([0086]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Gran, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ando et al. (US 2011/0144498, of record).
Regarding claim 4, the combined invention of Zhang and Gran discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Harris fails to show generating and displaying cross-sectional images in three orthogonal directions of an arbitrary position in the 3D image.
Ando discloses a medical image display apparatus. Ando teaches generating and displaying cross-sectional images in three orthogonal directions of an arbitrary position in a 3D image ([0027]; [0032]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Harris and Zhang to include generating and displaying cross-sectional images in three orthogonal directions of an arbitrary position in the 3D image, as taught by Ando, in order to allow present diagnostic images from multiple perspectives.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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. Zhang has been introduced to address the amended features.
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 AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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 at (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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798