DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on October 16, 2025 concerning application No. 18/465,371 filed on September 12, 2023.
Claims 1-20 are currently 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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the prior art rejections of the claims previously set forth.
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 1-20 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. Claims 1 and 13 recite the limitation “upon determining that the scanning of the breast of the subject with the ultrasound probe along the one direction has ended, generate a second ultrasound image based on a reception signal obtained at the end point” which is not described in the specification in such a way that conveys the inventor had possession of the limitation at the time the application was filed. [0057]-[0063] and fig. 6 of the present applications specification discloses generating an ultrasound image, determining whether scanning has ended and then storing the ultrasound image detected as the end point. Nowhere in the specification could it found where a new ultrasound image is generated after it is determined that the scanning has ended. For at least this reason the limitation recited above is considered new matter.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Claims 1 and 13 recite “a processor configured to…determine whether scanning complying with a determined scanning pattern is completed or not completed by performing image analysis on the first ultrasound image and on the second ultrasound image”.
The limitation of determining whether scanning is completed or not completed using the processor, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses the user observing the first and second ultrasound images and determining whether the scanning is completed or not based on the information present within the images. 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, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. The additional step of “prior to detection of a start point…determine whether the scanning of the breast of the subject with the ultrasound probe along the one direction has started by performing processing of detecting the start point based on a change in time of the height position of the ultrasound probe”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses a user observing the height position of the probe and determining whether a change in height has occurred based on the current height and previous height of the probe. Further, the step of “prior to detection of an end point…determine whether the scanning of the breast of the subjection with the ultrasound probe along the one direction has ended by performing processing of detecting the end point based on a change in time of the height position of the ultrasound probe detected by the sensing device”, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “a processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor” language, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses a user observing the height position of the probe and determining whether a change in height has occurred and correlating the change in height to an end position of the probe.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional elements and steps of claims 1 and 13 are an ultrasound probe, a sensing device for detecting a height position of the ultrasound probe and generation steps, where ultrasound images are generated using the ultrasound probe. The generation of ultrasound images using the ultrasound probe and detecting a height position of the ultrasound probe using a sensing device amount to data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the determining of compliance step. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The generating of ultrasound images using an ultrasound probe has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. [0002] of the present applications specification discloses “an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that obtains a tomographic image inside a subject by scanning a body surface of the subject with an ultrasound probe has been known”. Additionally, the step of detecting a height position of the ultrasound probe using a sensing device has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Rouet et al. (US 20200367860A1) discloses in [0003]-[0005] that is known in the art to track a location of an ultrasound probe using a probe tracker. [0136] further discloses the location of the probe corresponds to a height, therefore it is known in the art to detect a height position of the ultrasound probe using a sensing device. For these reasons, the additional steps do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2 and 14 recite the additionally step of determining that the scanning complying is completed by recognizing anatomical landmarks within the ultrasound image, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the processor” language, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses the user analyzing the obtained ultrasound images to determine whether a specific anatomical landmark is present or not within the images.
Claims 3-4 and 15 recites the additional step of notifying the user once it is determined the scanning is not completed, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the processor” language, “notify” in the context of the claim encompasses the user manually or mentally generating a notification that the scanning is not completed.
Claims 5-7 and 17-18 recite the additional elements of generating a graph representing the change in time of the height position of the ultrasound probe which, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the processor” language, “generate” in the context of the claim encompasses the user detecting points and generating a graph which can be performed in the min or by a human using pen and paper. Additionally, the claims recite a monitor for displaying the graph and the ultrasound images. The monitor is considered to be merely a generic component of an ultrasound system and does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of a monitor for displaying the graph and images does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this instance, the additional elements are seen as merely generic components of an ultrasound system and there is not improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field. For these reasons, the additional steps do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 8-9 further limits the ultrasound image being displayed by providing instruction for which ultrasound image is to be displayed. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 10-11 and 19 recite the additional element of a monitor displaying the determination result. The monitor is considered to be merely a generic component of an ultrasound system and does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of a monitor for displaying the determination result does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this instance, the additional elements are seen as merely generic components of an ultrasound system and there is not improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field. For these reasons, the additional steps do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 12 and 20 recite the additional step of combining scanning’s of the ultrasound probe, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting, “the processor” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “the processor” language, “combining” in the context of the claim encompasses the user analyzing data from more than one scanning periods.
Claim 16 recites the additional step of displaying the obtained ultrasound images on a monitor. The monitor is considered to be merely a generic component of an ultrasound system and does no more than link the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use. The additional element of a monitor for displaying the ultrasound images does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. In this instance, the additional elements are seen as merely generic components of an ultrasound system and there is not improvement in the functioning of the computer or technological field. For these reasons, the additional steps do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, and 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798