Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/518,876

ULTRASOUND DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS AND IMAGE DATA PROCESSING METHOD

Non-Final OA §102
Filed
Nov 24, 2023
Examiner
CATO, MIYA J
Art Unit
2681
Tech Center
2600 — Communications
Assignee
Fujifilm Healthcare Corporation
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
77%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 6m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 77% — above average
77%
Career Allow Rate
513 granted / 670 resolved
+14.6% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 6m
Avg Prosecution
24 currently pending
Career history
694
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
8.7%
-31.3% vs TC avg
§103
54.5%
+14.5% vs TC avg
§102
25.8%
-14.2% vs TC avg
§112
7.8%
-32.2% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 670 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 Claims 1-13 are pending in this application. Drawings The drawings were received on 11/24/2023 are accepted for examination purposes. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Specification The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “acquisition section”, “display processing section”, “step of acquiring” and “step of executing” in claims 1-12. Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Acquisition section corresponds to the information processing unit composed of a CPU that executes a program functioning as the acquisition section [Fig 1 (42), par 0039-0040] Display processing section corresponds to the information processing unit composed of a CPU that executes a program functioning as the display processing section [Fig 1 (46), par 0039-0040] If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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)(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. Claim(s) 1-4, 8, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kruecker et al (US-2024/0074738). As to Claim 1, Kruecker teaches ‘An ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: an acquisition section configured to acquire an image data group obtained in a past examination for a subject from a server in a current ultrasound examination for the subject [par 0006-0010, 0057, 0070, 0103-0105 – acquiring same ultrasound images from a previous imaging procedure stored in servers along with an anatomical scan window, probe orientation, and/or patient position for the earlier image in relation to a present procedure]; and a display processing section configured to, in a case where specific image data is selected from within the image data group in the current ultrasound examination, execute display processing of displaying a current image, which is a real-time ultrasound image, and a past image generated based on the specific image data [Figs 7 (705), 8, par 0061-0062, 0068, 0104, 0111-0113 – displaying a previous ultrasound image from the previous procedure and one or more ultrasound images acquired in real time during the present ultrasound imaging procedure], wherein the acquisition section is configured to start background acquisition processing of acquiring the image data group from the server based on subject information specified at a start of the current ultrasound examination, prior to a start of the display processing [Fig 6, par 0062, 0089-0090, 0094-0097 – acquiring previous ultrasound images based on target parameters a time point T2, a time point after T1 which acquires a baseline image (i.e. current ultrasound) and prior to displaying ultrasound images]’. Further, in regards to claim 12 the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus performs the image data processing method of claim 12. Further, in regards to claim 13, the image data processing method of claim 12 is fully embodied on the non-transitory storage medium of claim 13. As to Claim 2, Kruecker teaches ‘wherein the subject information is information input to an initial image which is displayed at the start of the current ultrasound examination [par 0062, 0104 – target parameters may be input into the system through a user input device representative of a target anatomical scan window and a target probe orientation]’. As to Claim 3, Kruecker teaches ‘wherein an extraction condition is designated before the start or at the start of the current ultrasound examination, and the acquisition section is configured to acquire an image data group generated in the past examination for the subject and satisfying the extraction condition from the server as the image data group [par 0006, 0090, 0094-0095 – identifying an anatomical scan window, ultrasound probe orientation, and/or patient position associated with an ultrasound image when acquiring a current baseline image at a time point T1 to retrieve stored ultrasound images from previous procedure]’. As to Claim 4, Kruecker teaches ‘wherein the extraction condition includes at least one of a condition for limiting a timing of the past examination, a condition for limiting a medical apparatus used to perform the past examination, or a condition for limiting a tissue examined in the past examination [par 0036, 0038, 0045 – the object may include anatomical locations and tissue types when acquiring previous ultrasound images with parameters of anatomical scan window, probe orientation, and/or patient position during imaging procedure]’. As to Claim 8, Kruecker teaches ‘wherein the image data group includes moving image data, and the display processing section is configured to display information indicating that data is being acquired in a thumbnail image display region corresponding to the moving image data during acquisition of the moving image data [par 0045, 0049, 0103-0104, 0108, 0112 – performing real-time processing on image data to provide a streaming video of ultrasound images of the object, storing ultrasound videos and displaying ultrasound images, image videos, and/or any imaging information of the object, as the current image stream is continuously obtained]’. Allowable Subject Matter Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 6 (and claims 7, 10 and 11 based on dependency) is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Kruecker in view of the prior art searched and/or cited does not teach nor suggest the combination of limitations including “wherein the acquisition section is configured to, in a case where the image data group to be acquired from the server includes still image data and moving image data, start acquisition of the still image data in the background acquisition processing prior to a start of acquisition of the moving image data” as recited in dependent claim 5; “wherein the acquisition section is configured to, in a case where the image data group to be acquired from the server includes still image data and volume data, start acquisition of the still image data in the background acquisition processing prior to a start of acquisition of the volume data” as recited in dependent claim 6; and “wherein the information indicating that data is being acquired includes information indicating the number of pieces of frame data constituting the moving image data” as recited in dependent claim 9. Conclusion The prior art made of record a. US Publication No. 2024/0074738 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. b. US Publication No. 2019/0012432 c. US Publication No. 2019/0125298 d. US Publication No. 2023/0255602 e. US Patent No. 8,731,264 Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIYA J CATO whose telephone number is (571)270-3954. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 830-530. 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, Akwasi Sarpong can be reached at 571.270.3438. 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. /MIYA J CATO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2681
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 24, 2023
Application Filed
Mar 02, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12597127
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR AUTOMATED IDENTIFICATION AND CLASSIFICATION OF LESIONS IN LOCAL LYMPH AND DISTANT METASTASES
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586415
INFORMATION PROCESSING METHOD, INFORMATION PROCESSING SYSTEM, AND INFORMATION TERMINAL TO ASSIST USER LEARNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12586673
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR RADIATION ENTRY IN DOSE MANAGEMENT
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12575895
MIXED REALITY IMAGE GUIDANCE FOR MEDICAL INTERVENTIONS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Patent 12569319
COMBINED FACE SCANNING AND INTRAORAL SCANNING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
77%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+12.0%)
2y 6m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 670 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month