DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on March 25, 2026 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112a rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112a rejection of claims 1 and 13 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/25/2026 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s arguments that the claims are patent eligible under 35 USC 101, examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant argues that the claims have “a usefulness in solving the technical problem of this application”. however, when considering whether claims are eligible under 35 USC 101, eligibility should not be evaluated based on whether the claim recite a useful, concrete, and tangible results.
Applicant further argues that “scanning the breast of the subject with ultrasound and generating an ultrasound image based on a received signal requires actual mechanical equipment, and their processing cannot be done by a human mental process”. However, as set forth in the previous office action the generating of an ultrasound image is considered insignificant extra-solution activity and amounts to mere data gathering which is required for obtaining the input data for the determining steps. Therefore, the additional element of scanning a breast and generating an ultrasound image does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the judicial exception.
For at least these reasons the 35 USC 101 rejection of the claims stands.
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, a generation step, where an ultrasound image is generated using the ultrasound probe, and storing ultrasound images. The generation of an ultrasound image 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. Additionally the step of storing the ultrasound images does not add an additional element that integrates the judicial exception into a practical application. See MPEP 2106.05(f)-(g). 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 generation of an ultrasound image 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. Lastly, the process of storing data has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d)II. 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 additional 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.
Examiner’s Note
Claims 1-20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 USC 101 set forth in this Office action.
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 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/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights