DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 08/03/2025 concerning application no. 18/553,249 filed on 09/29/2023.
Claims 1-14 are pending (Claims 8-11 are withdrawn from consideration).
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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-7 and 12-14) in the reply filed on 08/03/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The amendment for claim 8 has made it dependent upon claim 1. However, the common technical feature of the entirety of claim 1 does not make a contribution over the art (See below rejections). Claims 8-11 remain withdrawn as the common technical does not make a contribution over the art.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because:
The drawings (Figs. 6-8) are objected to because, according to MPEP 608.02 and 67 CFR 1.84, "India ink, or its equivalent that secures solid black lines, must be used for drawings". Drawings should be presented as India ink drawings unless the illustration is not capable of being accurately or adequately depicted by India ink drawings.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“an object detector comprising a classifier that is configured to detect…” in claims 1, 6, and 13: Paragraph 0049 discloses “Part of the signal processor is an object detector according to the invention.”
“signaling means that are operatively connected to the object detector and that are configured to emit…” in claims 6 and 14: A review of the original specification does not appear to set forth a corresponding structure for the claimed “signaling means”.
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.
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 § 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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites “an implantable object that is configured to exhibit an exclusive feature that can only be detected by the ultrasound system”. Paragraph 0045 of the specification establishes “The object preferably is an implantable object that is configured to exhibit an exclusive feature that can only be detected by the ultrasound system. For instance the object may have an unique feature the object detector of the ultrasound system is trained for. Accordingly, the exclusive feature is a feature of the implantable object, wherein the exclusive feature can only be detected in the ultrasound data. The exclusive feature of the object thus causes ultrasound data that is characteristic for the object to be detected, for instance an implantable marker.” However, the specification fails to provide support to such that the implantable object can be detected only by the ultrasound system. The specification does not provide any disclosure on what this feature is such that it is incapable of detection by any means other than ultrasound. Furthermore, the specification is silent regarding what the object or the feature are at all. There is no disclosure on how this feature is only able to be detected by ultrasound. Therefore, the claim contains subject matter which is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one with ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had possession of the claim invention at the time of filing.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “to generate an object detection signal representing a likelihood that an object to be detected is represented by the input data set generated by the ultrasound hardware controller”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim establishes “to detect data representing an object to be detected in an input data set generated by and received from the ultrasound hardware controller”. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art instances where there is a likelihood that the object is detected as the claim already establishes that the object is detected. That is, the object being detected provides an assurance that there is no likelihood that detection of the object is not performed.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an object to be detected”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “object to be detected” is the same as the “object to be detected” established preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “for a front end”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what “front end” is being referred to and with what respect.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 2 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an object to be detected”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “object to be detected” is the same as the “object to be detected” established claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 3 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an object to be detected”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “object to be detected” is the same as the “object to be detected” established claim 1 or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the likelihood that an object to be detected is represented by the input data set generated by the ultrasound hardware controller”. This claim element is indefinite. The claim 1 establishes “to detect data representing an object to be detected in an input data set generated by and received from the ultrasound hardware controller”. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art instances where there is a likelihood that the object is detected as the claim already establishes that the object is detected. That is, the object being detected provides an assurance that there is no likelihood that detection of the object is not performed.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 4 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an implanted marker as to object to be detected”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is attempting to establish the object as the implanted marker or that the implanted marker is situated with respect to the object.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language. Applicant is encouraged to use proper grammar and punctuation to set forth the proper scope of the claim.
Recites “an implanted marker”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “implanted marker” is the same as the “implanted marker” established the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 7 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an implantable object that is configured to exhibit an exclusive feature that can only be detected by the ultrasound system”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what the scope of the claim is as it is unclear if the claim is attempting to establish an echogenic feature or if the claim is attempting to establish an object that is imperceivable by means other than ultrasound system.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “an exclusive feature”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the feature is exclusive with respect to the marker’s other features or if the feature is exclusive with respect to the other claimed components. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what establishes a feature to be considered “exclusive”.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “an implanted marker as to object to be detected”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is attempting to establish the object as the implanted marker or that the implanted marker is situated with respect to the object.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language. Applicant is encouraged to use proper grammar and punctuation to set forth the proper scope of the claim.
Recites “an implanted marker”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “implanted marker” is the same as the “implanted marker” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim 13 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “The ultrasound system according to at least one of claim 12”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the claim is attempting to establish a plurality. The claim only establishes accordance to a single claim.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Claim limitation “signaling means” (See claims 6 and 14) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structural features or components are needed to satisfy this claimed “signaling means”. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
For purposes of examination, the Office is considering central processing unit (CPU) or display as a “signaling means”.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 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)(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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Simopoulos (PGPUB No. US 2007/0055153).
Regarding claim 1, Simopoulos teaches a ultrasound system comprising an ultrasound hardware controller for ultrasound data acquisition applying acquisition parameter values for acquisition parameters that include at least a focal depth, an ultrasound data processor for ultrasound data processing and an image processing and display unit for image data processing and displaying (Paragraph 0022 teaches an ultrasound system with a processor and display for identifying anatomical features, controlling imaging as a function of imaged anatomical features, and/or imaging as a function of anatomical information. Paragraph 0029 teaches the processor sets one or more imaging parameters. Paragraph 0081 teaches imaging according to the focal positions. See Fig. 1),
further comprising an object detector comprising a classifier (Abstract teaches application of a classifier) that is configured
to detect data representing an object to be detected in an input data set generated by and received from the ultrasound hardware controller (Paragraph 0034 teaches the application of the classifier to identify the anatomical information from the image. See Fig. 2),
to generate an object detection signal representing a likelihood that an object to be detected is represented by the input data set generated by the ultrasound hardware controller (Paragraph 0034 teaches the application of the classifier to identify the anatomical information from the image. See Fig. 2. Paragraph 0039 teaches a probabilistic boosting tree (PBT), which unifies classification, recognition, and clustering into one treatment, may be used. Paragraphs 0056-58 teaches the calculation of the probability of the classification. Paragraph 0049 teaches the model is achieving maximum likelihood) and
to feed object detection signal back to the ultrasound hardware controller for adapting acquisition parameter values for a front end depending on the object detection signal generated by the object detector (Paragraph 0080 teaches that the value of the image parameters is set as a function of the anatomical information. Imaging or scanning is controlled as a function of the particular canonical view, tissue structure, flow pattern, other anatomical information, or combination thereof. The medical imaging system operates to scan a patient and generate medical images in response to one or more settings for imaging parameter. Paragraph 0034 teaches the application of the classifier to identify the anatomical information from the image. See Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 2, Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Simopoulos further teaches an ultrasound system, wherein the object detector comprises at least one neural network that is trained with training data sets comprising data representing an object to be detected (Paragraph 0028 teaches that the classifier can be a neural network classifier. The classifier is instructions, a matrix, a learned code, or other software and/or hardware for distinguishing between information in a medical image. Learned feature vectors are used to classify the anatomy. Paragraph 0035 teaches the classifier is trained. Paragraphs 0037-42 teaches the training such that the classifier is able to distinguish between classes. Paragraphs 0069-74 teaches training with the anatomical information).
Regarding claim 3, Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 2, as discussed above.
Simopoulos further teaches an ultrasound system, wherein the object detection signal is based on a prediction generated by the neural network, said prediction representing the likelihood that an object to be detected is represented by the input data set generated by the ultrasound hardware controller (Paragraph 0028 teaches that the classifier can be a neural network classifier. Paragraph 0034 teaches the application of the classifier to identify the anatomical information from the image. See Fig. 2. Paragraph 0039 teaches a probabilistic boosting tree (PBT), which unifies classification, recognition, and clustering into one treatment, may be used. Paragraphs 0056-58 teaches the calculation of the probability of the classification. Paragraph 0049 teaches the model is achieving maximum likelihood. Paragraph 0022 teaches an ultrasound system with a processor and display for identifying anatomical features, controlling imaging as a function of imaged anatomical features, and/or imaging as a function of anatomical information).
Regarding claim 5, Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Simopoulos further teaches an ultrasound system, wherein the input data set fed to the object detector comprises ultrasound data generated by the ultrasound hardware controller and acquisition parameter values that were applied for acquiring the ultrasound data (Abstract teaches anatomical information is identified from a medical image and/or used for controlling a medical diagnostic imaging system, such as an ultrasound system. To identify anatomical information from a medical image, a processor applies a multi-class classifier. Paragraph 0035 teaches the classifier is trained. Paragraphs 0037-42 teaches the training such that the classifier is able to distinguish between classes. Paragraphs 0069-74 teaches training with the anatomical information).
Regarding claim 6, Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 1, as discussed above.
Simopoulos further teaches an ultrasound system, further comprising signaling means that are operatively connected to the object detector and that are configured to emit a user perceivable signal that changes depending on an output of the object detector (Paragraph 0029 teaches the display of the anatomical information. Paragraph 0031 teaches that the image data corresponds to the displayed image. Paragraph 0020 teaches that the recognition of the anatomy by the classier is in real time and during the same imaging session. Optimal imaging and measurements are automatically adjusted based on the anatomy. See Fig. 1).
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 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.
Claims 4, 7, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Simopoulos (PGPUB No. US 2007/0055153) in view of Ralovich et al. (PGPUB No. US 2016/0287214).
Regarding claim 4, Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 2, as discussed above.
However, Simopoulos is silent regarding an ultrasound system, wherein the neural network is trained to identify data representing an implanted marker as to object to be detected and is trained with training data sets that comprise data representing an implanted marker.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding classifier-based ultrasound imaging, Ralovich teaches an ultrasound system, wherein the neural network is trained to identify data representing an implanted marker as to object to be detected and is trained with training data sets that comprise data representing an implanted marker (Paragraph 0040 teaches the use of a neural network. Para 0039 teaches that the object of interest can be distinguished with the machine learnt classifier. Paragraph 0042 teaches that the object to be detected may be an implant. Paragraphs 0039-41 teaches that the training data includes information of the object of interest and used as feedback to indicate the correctness of located objects).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Simopoulos with Ralovich’s teaching of a neural network operating with implanted markers. This modified apparatus would allow the user to generate images with a greater temporal and/or spatial resolution than scanning of the entire original volume (Abstract of Ralovich). Furthermore, the modification to ensure more targeted usage of available acquisition time and scanning with higher resolution (Paragraph 0002 of Ralovich).
Regarding claim 7, modified Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 1, as discussed above.
However, Simopoulos is silent regarding an ultrasound system, and further comprising an implantable object that is configured to exhibit an exclusive feature that can only be detected by the ultrasound system.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding classifier-based ultrasound imaging, Ralovich teaches an ultrasound system, and further comprising an implantable object that is configured to exhibit an exclusive feature that can only be detected by the ultrasound system (Paragraph 0040 teaches the use of a neural network. Para 0039 teaches that the object of interest can be distinguished with the machine learnt classifier. Paragraph 0042 teaches that the object to be detected may be an implant. Paragraph 0043 teaches detected anatomy or device has any spatial extent. For example, the anatomy extends by multiple voxels in one or more dimensions. The anatomy has any shape, such as smoothly varying curved shape. Jagged or flat portions may occur. A device may have a smooth surface. Abstract teaches that the volume of interest is ultrasonically imaged).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Simopoulos with Ralovich’s teaching of implant being detectable by ultrasound. This modified apparatus would allow the user to generate images with a greater temporal and/or spatial resolution than scanning of the entire original volume (Abstract of Ralovich). Furthermore, the modification to ensure more targeted usage of available acquisition time and scanning with higher resolution (Paragraph 0002 of Ralovich).
Regarding claim 12, Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 3, as discussed above.
However, Simopoulos is silent regarding an ultrasound system, wherein the neural network is trained to identify data representing an implanted marker as to object to be detected and is trained with training data sets that comprise data representing an implanted marker.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding classifier-based ultrasound imaging, Ralovich teaches an ultrasound system, wherein the neural network is trained to identify data representing an implanted marker as to object to be detected and is trained with training data sets that comprise data representing an implanted marker (Paragraph 0040 teaches the use of a neural network. Para 0039 teaches that the object of interest can be distinguished with the machine learnt classifier. Paragraph 0042 teaches that the object to be detected may be an implant. Paragraphs 0039-41 teaches that the training data includes information of the object of interest and used as feedback to indicate the correctness of located objects).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Simopoulos with Ralovich’s teaching of a neural network operating with implanted markers. This modified apparatus would allow the user to generate images with a greater temporal and/or spatial resolution than scanning of the entire original volume (Abstract of Ralovich). Furthermore, the modification to ensure more targeted usage of available acquisition time and scanning with higher resolution (Paragraph 0002 of Ralovich).
Regarding claim 13, modified Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 12, as discussed above.
Simopoulos further teaches an ultrasound system, wherein the input data set fed to the object detector comprises ultrasound data generated by the ultrasound hardware controller and acquisition parameter values that were applied for acquiring the ultrasound data (Abstract teaches anatomical information is identified from a medical image and/or used for controlling a medical diagnostic imaging system, such as an ultrasound system. To identify anatomical information from a medical image, a processor applies a multi-class classifier. Paragraph 0035 teaches the classifier is trained. Paragraphs 0037-42 teaches the training such that the classifier is able to distinguish between classes. Paragraphs 0069-74 teaches training with the anatomical information).
Regarding claim 14, modified Simopoulos teaches the ultrasound system in claim 13, as discussed above.
Simopoulos further teaches an ultrasound system, further comprising signaling means that are operatively connected to the object detector and that are configured to emit a user perceivable signal that changes depending on an output of the object detector (Paragraph 0029 teaches the display of the anatomical information. Paragraph 0031 teaches that the image data corresponds to the displayed image. Paragraph 0020 teaches that the recognition of the anatomy by the classier is in real time and during the same imaging session. Optimal imaging and measurements are automatically adjusted based on the anatomy. See Fig. 1).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Patil et al. (PGPUB No. US 2021/0128114): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Henderson et al. (PGPUB No. US 2016/0262720): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Choi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0282200): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Errico et al. (PGPUB No. US 2021/0113190): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Levy et al. (PGPUB No. US 2019/0307427): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Schnellbäche et al. (PGPUB No. US 2023/0148382): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Bedi et al. (PGPUB No. US 2021/0045710): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Wang et al. (PGPUB No. US 2016/0287214): Teaches the adjustment of focal depth and imaging parameters according to the image processing and identification of an object according to a machine learning system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 on 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798