DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on June 8, 2026 concerning application No. 18/574,975 filed on December 28, 2023.
Claims 1-3, 8-11 and 13-17 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 06/08/2025 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 regarding the limitation “a landmark location being detected as moving such that…less than all of the ultrasound images in the ultrasound video stream depict the landmark location”. However, amending the limitation “using only a portion of the ultrasound steam that…includes less than all of the ultrasound images in the ultrasound video stream” to “using only a subset of the plurality of ultrasound image frames that occur after the trigger event” does not overcome the 35 USC 112a rejection because the specification does not provide support for using only a subset of the plurality of ultrasound image frames. Therefore the 35 USC 112a rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2025 regarding the 35 USC 112b rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 1, 13, and 15 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 06/08/2025 regarding the 35 USC 101 rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. As set forth in the previous office action, the detecting of a trigger event using an image-based trigger and filtering out probe motion from the ultrasound video stream are both abstract ideas and therefore ineligible at step 2A prong one. Further the claims do not recite any additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at step 2A prong two. The receiving of tracking data using an inertial measuring unit amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the filtering step. Applicant additionally draws attention to USPTO Director Squires’s instruction that “Examiner and panels should not evaluate claims at such high level of generality.” (Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal No. 2024-000567, p. 9 (Sept. 26, 2025).). However, these instructions are related to artificial intelligence and machine learning which is not applicable to the present invention.
In response to applicant’s arguments on pg. 10 regarding step 2B, examiner respectfully disagrees. The addition of receiving tracking data from an IMU that is synchronized with the ultrasound video stream does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The receiving of the tracking data amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required for obtaining the input data for the filtering step and the IMU has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field as set forth in the previous office action. Further MPEP 2106.05.I.A sets forth that adding mere data gathering in conjunction with an abstract idea was not found to be enough to quality as “significantly more” when recited in a claim with a judicial exception.
For at least these reasons the 35 USC 101 rejection stands.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 16, line 5, “a user” should read “the user”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-3, 8-11 and 13-17 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, 13 and 15 recite the limitations “the breathing pattern is identified via the video processing using only a subset of the plurality of ultrasound image frames that occur after the trigger event” which is considered new and is not described in the specification in such a way to reasonably convey the inventor had possession of the limitations at the time the application was filed. Nowhere in the specification could it be found where it discloses only a subset of the plurality of ultrasound image frames that occur after the trigger event are used for identifying the breathing pattern. For at least these reasons the limitations recited above are 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 1-3, 8-11 and 13-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 1, 13 and 15 recite “a processor configured to:…initiate video processing to identify a breathing pattern in the ultrasound video stream responsive to detection of the trigger event…extract from the ultrasound video stream, at least one breathing-related parameter associated with the breathing pattern”.
The limitation of identifying a breathing pattern and extracting a breathing-related parameter, 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 configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “identify” in the context of the claims encompasses a user viewing an ultrasound video stream, identifying a pattern within the video stream and outputting a breathing-related parameter based on the pattern identification. The user can simply count the number of inhales and exhales that occur within the video stream to determine the breathing rate. Claim 15 additionally, discloses the limitation is performed using a processor which is considered a generic computer component and therefore the limitation of claim 15 can be performed in the mind. 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 claims recites an abstract idea. Claims 1, 13 and 15 additionally recite “a processor configured to…detect a trigger event indicative of a breathing pattern in the ultrasound video stream using an image-based trigger comprising a specific motion in the ultrasound video stream”, 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 “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “detect” in the context of the claims encompasses the user or analyzing an ultrasound video stream and identifying something within the video stream that is a trigger event. Claim 15 additionally discloses the limitation is performed using a processor which is considered a generic computer component and therefore the limitation of claim 15 can be performed in the mind. Claims 1, 13 and 15 additionally recite “a processor configured to…output, to a user, a record with the at least one breathing-related parameter” 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 “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “output” in the context of the claims encompasses the user writing down or taking mental note of the breathing-related parameter. Claim 15 additionally discloses the limitation is performed using a processor which is considered a generic computer component and therefore the limitation of claim 15 can be performed in the mind. Claims 1, 13, and 15 additionally recite the additional step of using the processor to filter out probe motion from the video stream based on tracking data for 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 “a processor configured to” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “a processor configured to” language, “filter” in the context of the claims encompasses a user viewing an ultrasound video stream, identifying parts of the video stream that have probe motion within them and filtering those parts out of the video stream. 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.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The additional element of claims 1, 13, and 15 is an ultrasound transducer which acquires an ultrasound video stream and receiving tracking data of the ultrasound transducer from an inertial measurement unit. The acquiring of an ultrasound video stream using an ultrasound transducer amounts to data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the identifying step. The receiving of the tracking data amounts to mere data gathering recited at a high level of generality which is required to obtain the input data for the filtering 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 acquiring of the ultrasound video stream using an ultrasound transducer has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. acquiring an ultrasound video stream with an ultrasound transducer is widely known in the art, as evidenced by Samset et al. (US 20170112473), [0002] discloses “conventional ultrasound imaging systems usually include ultrasound scanning devices, such as ultrasound probes having transducer…to acquire one or more ultrasound images or videos”). The receiving of tracking data of the ultrasound probe using an inertial measuring unit has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. Toporek et al. (US 20200187898) discloses in [0079] “an orientation of 3D US transducer 23 is therefore tracked using an inertial measurement unit (IMU) 70 as known in art of the present disclosure”.
Claims 2-3 recite the processor is configured to use an artificial intelligence algorithm for performing the estimating of the breathing-related parameter 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 “an artificial intelligence algorithm” nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. 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.
Claims 8-11 further limit the breathing parameters being extracted by providing examples of the extracted breathing parameters. The claims do not recite additional elements.
Claim 14 recites an additional step of uploading the record to an electronic medical record system with a mitigation step. the addition of the uploading step does not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception because uploading (storing) data in an electronic medical record system (memory) is seen as being well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field (See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II)).
Claim 16 further limits the information being outputted within the record. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claim 17 further limits the filtering by providing examples of the data to be filtered. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Examiners Note
Claims 1-3, 8-11 and 13-17 could be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 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