DETAILED ACTION
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
Claims 7-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Species B and C, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on December 05, 2024.
In the response to restriction requirement, Applicant asserted that (1) claims 2-4, 11 and 13-18 are also generic and requested the Examiner to also examine claims 2-4, 11 and 13-18 on the merits; and (2) all the alleged Species share the same inventive concept including identifying anatomical features in ultrasound image data and automatically acquiring a reference plane image based on recognized anatomical features. Therefore, this essential feature is recited in generic claims 1 and 12 and is also found in the dependent claims directed to each species. Thus, the species do not differ in their basic/core technical features. Each alleged species merely applies the same method to a different fetal body part (head/heart/legs). This does not create a distinct or mutually exclusive structural or functional feature.
Examiner respectfully disagrees and notes the following:
In regard to (1), a “generic claim” is defined as requiring no material element additional to those required by the species claims, and each of the species claims must require all the limitations of the generic claim, MPEP 806.04(d). Accordingly, since claims 2-4, 11 and 13-18 have no dependency to each of the identified Species A-C, they are not generic claims to claims 5-10 and 16-17. Claims 2-4, 11 ad 13-18, however, would be examined regardless since they are pending and non-withdrawn.
In regard to (2), since claims 1 and 12 are the generic claims to the identified Species A-C, these species share the same inventive concept that the generic claims recite. Each of the species, however, is directed to distinct characteristics that are mutually exclusive to each other. In specific, claims 5, 7 and 9 recite distinct body parts along with distinct reference planes. Claims 6, 8 and 10 further recite distinct anatomical landmarks associated with each respective body parts. These reference planes and anatomical landmarks are unique to their respective body parts and are not applicable to the other two types of body parts of the other two Species. The species hence are considered patentably distinct species and they require different searching strings and strategies.
Based on the above considerations, the species election requirement is considered appropriate. As Applicant has elected Species A, claims 5-6 and 16-17, the non-elected Species B-C, claims 7-10 are now withdrawn. Claims 1-6 and 11-18 are examined in this Office action.
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 February 29, 2024, March 06, 2024, March 28, 2024 and December 31, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed on February 29, 2024 are accepted.
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 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1 of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.03).
Claims 1-11 are directed to an “apparatus” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a machine.
Claims 12-18 are directed to a “method” which describes one of the four statutory categories of patentable subject matter, i.e., a process.
Step 2A of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.04).
Prong One:
Claims 1 and 12 recite (“sets forth” or “describes”) the abstract idea of “a mental process” (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.), substantially as follows: “extract at least one reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data by using landmark information indicating anatomical features of an object”.
In claims 1 and 12, the above recited steps can be practically performed in the human mind, with the aid of a pen and paper. If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the obtained ultrasound image data, he/she would be able to identify anatomical features of an object on the image, label these features as landmark information, and extract the imaging plane that comprises these anatomical features as the at least one reference plane. There is nothing recited in the claim to suggest an undue level of complexity in how the landmark information is used and how the at least one reference plane is extracted from the obtained ultrasound image data. Therefore, a person would be able to perform the extraction mentally.
Prong Two: Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that integrate the mental process into a practical application.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recites (1) additional steps of obtain ultrasound image data acquired by an ultrasonic probe; (2) additional elements of a display and at least one processor; (3) performing the extraction automatically by a processor; and (4) further an addition step of displaying the extracted at least one reference plane on the display.
The steps in (1) and the elements (2) represent merely data gathering or pre-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality with conventionally used tools (see below Step IIB for further details).
The step in (4) represents merely notification outputting by a processor as a post-solution activity and is recited at a high level of generality.
Further in regard to the additional step (3) of the extraction being performed automatically by a processor, “A claim that requires computer may still recite a mental process. MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).III.C.: Performing a mental process on a generic computer, in a computer environment, or using a computer as a tool to perform the steps are considered a mental process”.
As a whole, the additional elements merely serve to gather and feed information to the abstract idea and to output a notification based on the abstract idea, while generically implementing it on conventionally used tools. There is no practical application because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. No improvement to the technology is evident, and the extracted at least one reference plane is not outputted in any way such that a practical benefit is realized. Therefore, the additional elements, alone or in combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application.
Step 2B of the subject matter eligibility test (see MPEP 2106.05).
Claims 1 and 12 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above, the claims recite (1) additional steps of obtain ultrasound image data acquired by an ultrasonic probe; (2) additional elements of a display and at least one processor; (3) performing the extraction automatically by a processor; and (4) further an addition step of displaying the extracted at least one reference plane on the display. These steps/elements represent mere data gathering, data outputting or pre/post/extra-solution activities that are necessary for use of the recited judicial exception and are recited at a high level of generality.
For similar reasons set forth in Step 2A, Prong Two above, the additional elements do not provide an inventive concept under Step 2B.
Accordingly, these additional steps amount to no more than insignificant conventional extra-solution activity. Mere insignificant conventional extra-solution activity cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims hence are not patent eligible.
Dependent Claims
The dependent claims incorporate all the limitations of their respective independent claims. The following analysis focus on the limitations recited in the dependent claims to determine whether they merely recite further abstract idea, or whether or not they recite additional elements that may either amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in their respective independent claims, or may integrate the abstract idea in their respective independent claims to a practical application.
The following dependent claims merely further define the abstract idea and are, therefore, directed to an abstract idea for similar reasons as stated in the analysis for their respective independent claims, hence are patent ineligible:
determining features associated with a position (claims 2 and 13 – determining whether a position of the ultrasound probe is allowable; claims 5 and 15 – estimating a relative position of the ultrasound image to the allowable range) - If a person were to visually examine, i.e., perform an observation, the location of the ultrasound probe and the ultrasound image, either in a printout or an electronic format, he/she would be able to determine whether the position of the ultrasound probe is proper, i.e., allowable. He or she would also be able to determine an allowable range, and further estimate a relative position of the ultrasound image data to the allowable range; and
describing the at least one reference plane and the landmark (claims 6-10 and 16-17); and
The following dependent claims merely further describe the extra-solution activities and therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception or integrate the abstract idea into a practical application for similar reasons as stated in the analysis for their respective independent claims, hence are patent ineligible:
providing a feedback related to the position of the ultrasound probe (claims 2-4, 13-15) – providing a feedback is merely an output, an insignificant post-solution activity, recited in a high level of generality;
describing the ultrasound probe (claim 11); and
describing a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having a program (claim 18).
Taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application at least because the abstract idea is not applied, relied on, or used in a meaningful way. They also do not add anything significantly more than the abstract idea. Their collective functions merely provide computer/electronic implementation and processing, and no additional elements beyond those of the abstract idea. Looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer, output device, improves technology other than the technical field of the claimed invention, etc. Therefore, the claims are rejected as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Based on the above consideration and analysis, claims xx-xx are patent ineligible, i.e., rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 11-12 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zou et al., US 2017/0367685 A1, hereinafter Zou.
Claims 1, 12 and 18. Zou teaches in FIGS.1-2 and 12 an ultrasonic imaging apparatus (10), a method of controlling an ultrasonic imaging apparatus, and a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program, which when executed on a computer, performs the steps of the method ([0397]: the methods of the embodiments may be implemented by hardware or by a processor executing software instructions stored in a memory), comprising:
a display (9); and
at least one processor (7) configured to:
obtain ultrasound image data acquired by an ultrasonic probe ([0085]: using the 3D ultrasonic imaging system to perform 3D scanning to the head of the target body such as a fetus head; and [0087]: FIG.3 shows that volume of 3D may be constructed by F frame of image frame with a size of WxH; and FIG.1: the ultrasonic probe 2 and its associated components 3-7 communicates with the signal processing unit 7),
automatically extract at least one reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data by using landmark information indicating anatomical features of an object ([0185]: taking the following ultrasonic image of a fetal brain as an example to introduce the automatic detection method related to median sagittal section image in details; and [0292]: certain specific structures may be reflected in the median sagittal section image of fetus head, in other words, the median sagittal section image of fetus head contains certain unique structure characteristic…it may utilize this character of the median sagittal section image of fetus head to generate a template image (or standard reference image) of median sagittal section of fetus head) – the “certain specific structures” that are used to generate the standard reference image is considered the “anatomical features included in a landmark list” as claimed, and
display the extracted at least one reference plane on the display ([0324]: it may include allowing the user manually rotate or offset the sections (includes sagittal sections, e.g., the median sagittal section image) to change the position of the section, or change the anatomical position by adjusting the indicator, or allowing the user choose the reference image, through man-machine interaction manners such as keys, promotion boxes, trackballs or widgets configured on the display for receiving user input instructions) – since the images are manipulatable on the display, it indicates that the reference image, i.e., the “reference plane image” as claimed, is displayed on the display.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17. Zou further teaches that
the object is fetal head ([0292]: certain specific structures may be reflected in the median sagittal section image of fetus head, in other words, the median sagittal section image of fetus head contains certain unique structure characteristic…it may utilize this character of the median sagittal section image of fetus head to generate a template image (or standard reference image) of median sagittal section of fetus head), and
the at least one reference plane comprises at least one of a Trans-Thalamic Plane (TTP), a Trans-Ventricular Plane (TVP), a Trans-Cerebellar Plane (TCP), or a Mid Sagittal Plane (MSP), wherein the landmark information comprises at least one of Cavum Septum pellucidum (CSP), Cerebellum, Choroid plexus, Lateral ventricle, Cisterna magna, or Thalami ([0089]: For the TCP section, the brain midline, the cavum septi pellucidi, the cerebellum and the joint of the upper cerebellum and the lower cerebellum that is the cauda cerebella can be seen in the cerebellum section…For the TTP section. the structure of the thalamus, the brain midline and the cavum septi pellucid can be seen in the thalamus section…For the TVP section, the structure of the lateral ventricle and the cavum septi pellucidi may be seen in the section).
Claim 11. Zou further teaches
the ultrasonic probe ([0079]: FIG.1: the 3D ultrasonic imaging system includes a probe 2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zou in view of Jago et al., US 2015/0302638 A1, hereinafter Jago, further in view of Ogasawara et al., US 2015/0305718 A1, hereinafter Ogasawara.
Claims 2 and 13. Zou teaches all the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectively.
Zou does not teach determining whether a position of the ultrasonic probe is allowable based on the ultrasound image data, and providing a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe.
However, in an analogous fetal ultrasound imaging field of endeavor,
Jago teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine whether a position of the ultrasonic probe is allowable based on the ultrasound image data (Abstract: A matrix array probe is manipulated until a first standard view such as a 4-chamber view is acquired) – when the first standard view is acquired, it indicates that the data acquisition position of the probe is within an allowable range, i.e., suitable for data acquisition.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of the apparatus and the method of Jugo employ such a feature of determine whether a position of the ultrasonic probe is allowable based on the ultrasound image data as taught in Jago for the advantage of “controlling the matrix array probe to automatically scan the planes of all of the standard views simultaneously in real-time”, as suggested in Jago, Abstract.
Neither Zou nor Jago teaches that the processor is configured to provide a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe.
However, in an analogous ultrasound imaging probe guide field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches that the processor is configured to
provide a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe (FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa13: display movement matching display; and [0113]: if the probe position falls within the predetermined range including the designation position (Step Sa 10), the movement matching display is displayed (step Sa13); FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] No [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa11: generate probe guide information (distance and direction) based on designation position and probe position, and Sa12: updated probe guide information in 3DBM superimposed image by newly generated probe guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of the apparatus and the method of Zou and Jugo combined employ such a feature of provide a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing an updated probe guide information in order to guide the probe to the designation position to acquire proper scanning slices”, as suggested in Ogasawara, FIG.10 and [0004].
Claims 3 and 14. Ogasawara further teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to:
if the position of ultrasonic probe where the ultrasonic probe acquire the ultrasound image data is allowable, provide a first feedback which inform that the position of the ultrasonic probe is appropriate (FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa13: display movement matching display; and [0113]: if the probe position falls within the predetermined range including the designation position (Step Sa 10), the movement matching display is displayed (step Sa13)).
Claims 4 and 15. Ogasawara further teaches that the ultrasound imaging apparatus of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: estimate a relative position of the ultrasound image data with respect to an allowable range, provide a second feedback based on the estimated relative position (FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] No [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa11: generate probe guide information (distance and direction) based on designation position and probe position, and Sa12: updated probe guide information in 3DBM superimposed image by newly generated probe guide information).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-6 and 11-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 6, 10 and 14 of U.S. Patent No. 12,508,002 B2 in view of Zou et al., US 2017/0367685 A1, hereinafter Zou. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications appear to disclose substantially identical subject matter with the instant claims being simply broader than the patent claims.
Both the instant application and the ‘002 patent disclose an ultrasonic imaging apparatus and a method of controlling an ultrasonic imaging apparatus.
Claim 1 of the ‘002 patent reads on claims 1-4 of the instant application except for the anatomical features being indicated by landmark information in claim 12.
Claim 6 of the ‘002 patent reads on claims 5 of the instant application.
Claim 2 of the ‘002 patent reads on claims 11 of the instant application.
Claim 10 of the ‘002 patent reads on claims 12-15 of the instant application except for the anatomical features being indicated by landmark information in claim 12.
Claim 14 of the ‘002 patent reads on claims 16 of the instant application.
Claim 17 of the ‘002 patent reads on claims 18 of the instant application.
However, in an analogous fetal ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Zou teaches that
the landmark information indicates the anatomical features of an objection (claims 1 and 12), and the landmark information comprises at least one of Cavum Septum pellucidum (CSP), Cerebellum, Choroid plexus, Lateral ventricle, Cisterna magna, or Thalami (claims 6 and 17) ([0089]: For the TCP section, the brain midline, the cavum septi pellucidi, the cerebellum and the joint of the upper cerebellum and the lower cerebellum that is the cauda cerebella can be seen in the cerebellum section…For the TTP section. the structure of the thalamus, the brain midline and the cavum septi pellucid can be seen in the thalamus section…For the TVP section, the structure of the lateral ventricle and the cavum septi pellucidi may be seen in the section).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anatomical feature of ‘002 employ such a feature of being indicated by the landmark feature comprising at least one of Cavum Septum pellucidum (CSP), Cerebellum, Choroid plexus, Lateral ventricle, Cisterna magna, or Thalami as taught in Zou for the advantage of “accurately and efficiently obtain the 3D image data to further improve the existing medical imaging data display processing technology”, as suggested in Zou, [0034].
Claims 1, 11, 12 and 18 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 19 and 20 of U.S. Patent Application 18,592,282. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications appear to disclose substantially identical subject matter with the instant claims being simply broader than the patent claims.
Both the instant application and the ‘002 patent disclose an ultrasonic imaging apparatus and a method of controlling an ultrasonic imaging apparatus.
Claim 1 of the ‘282 patent application reads on claims 1 and 11 of the instant application.
Claim 19 of the ‘282 patent application reads on claim 12 of the instant application.
Claim 20 of the ‘282 patent application reads on claim 18 of the instant application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 2-4 and 13-15 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent Application 18,592,282 in view of Jago et al., US 2015/0302638 A1, hereinafter Jago, further in view of Ogasawara et al., US 2015/0305718 A1, hereinafter Ogasawara. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications appear to disclose substantially identical subject matter with the instant claims being simply broader than the patent claims.
Both the instant application and the ‘282 patent application disclose an ultrasonic imaging apparatus and a method of controlling an ultrasonic imaging apparatus.
‘282 does not teach the recited features of claims 2-4 and 13-15.
However, in an analogous fetal ultrasound imaging field of endeavor,
Jago teaches that the at least one processor is further configured to:
determine whether a position of the ultrasonic probe is allowable based on the ultrasound image data (claims 2 and 13) (Abstract: A matrix array probe is manipulated until a first standard view such as a 4-chamber view is acquired) – when the first standard view is acquired, it indicates that the data acquisition position of the probe is within an allowable range, i.e., suitable for data acquisition;
if the position of ultrasonic probe where the ultrasonic probe acquire the ultrasound image data is allowable, provide a first feedback which inform that the position of the ultrasonic probe is appropriate (claims 3 and 14) (FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa13: display movement matching display; and [0113]: if the probe position falls within the predetermined range including the designation position (Step Sa 10), the movement matching display is displayed (step Sa13)); and
estimate a relative position of the ultrasound image data with respect to an allowable range, provide a second feedback based on the estimated relative position (claims 4 and 15) (FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] No [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa11: generate probe guide information (distance and direction) based on designation position and probe position, and Sa12: updated probe guide information in 3DBM superimposed image by newly generated probe guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of the apparatus and the method of Jugo employ the features associated with the different feedbacks associated with whether the probe is within an allowable range as taught in Jago for the advantage of “controlling the matrix array probe to automatically scan the planes of all of the standard views simultaneously in real-time”, as suggested in Jago, Abstract.
Neither ‘282 nor Jago teaches that the processor is configured to provide a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe.
However, in an analogous ultrasound imaging probe guide field of endeavor, Ogasawara teaches that the processor is configured to
provide a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe (FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] Yes [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa13: display movement matching display; and [0113]: if the probe position falls within the predetermined range including the designation position (Step Sa 10), the movement matching display is displayed (step Sa13); FIG.10, Sa10: Does probe position fall within predetermined range including designation position? [Wingdings font/0xE0] No [Wingdings font/0xE0] Sa11: generate probe guide information (distance and direction) based on designation position and probe position, and Sa12: updated probe guide information in 3DBM superimposed image by newly generated probe guide information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the processor of the apparatus and the method of ‘282 and Jugo combined employ such a feature of provide a feedback related to the position of the ultrasonic probe as taught in Ogasawara for the advantage of “providing an updated probe guide information in order to guide the probe to the designation position to acquire proper scanning slices”, as suggested in Ogasawara, FIG.10 and [0004].
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 5-6 and 16-17 are rejected on the ground of provisional nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 19 of U.S. Patent Application 18,592,282 in view of Zou et al., US 2017/0367685 A1, hereinafter Zou. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both applications appear to disclose substantially identical subject matter with the instant claims being simply broader than the patent claims.
Both the instant application and the ‘282 patent application disclose an ultrasonic imaging apparatus and a method of controlling an ultrasonic imaging apparatus.
‘282 does not teach the recited features of claims 5-6 and 16-17.
However, in an analogous fetal ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Zou teaches that
the object is fetal head (claims 5 and 16) ([0292]: certain specific structures may be reflected in the median sagittal section image of fetus head, in other words, the median sagittal section image of fetus head contains certain unique structure characteristic…it may utilize this character of the median sagittal section image of fetus head to generate a template image (or standard reference image) of median sagittal section of fetus head), and
the at least one reference plane comprises at least one of a Trans-Thalamic Plane (TTP), a Trans-Ventricular Plane (TVP), a Trans-Cerebellar Plane (TCP), or a Mid Sagittal Plane (MSP) (claims 5 and 16), wherein the landmark information comprises at least one of Cavum Septum pellucidum (CSP), Cerebellum, Choroid plexus, Lateral ventricle, Cisterna magna, or Thalami (claims 6 and 17) ([0089]: For the TCP section, the brain midline, the cavum septi pellucidi, the cerebellum and the joint of the upper cerebellum and the lower cerebellum that is the cauda cerebella can be seen in the cerebellum section…For the TTP section. the structure of the thalamus, the brain midline and the cavum septi pellucid can be seen in the thalamus section…For the TVP section, the structure of the lateral ventricle and the cavum septi pellucidi may be seen in the section). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the anatomical feature of ‘002 employ such a feature of being indicated by the landmark feature comprising at least one of Cavum Septum pellucidum (CSP), Cerebellum, Choroid plexus, Lateral ventricle, Cisterna magna, or Thalami as taught in Zou for the advantage of “accurately and efficiently obtain the 3D image data to further improve the existing medical imaging data display processing technology”, as suggested in Zou, [0034].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YI-SHAN YANG whose telephone number is (408) 918-7628. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-4pm PST.
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 M Bui-Pho can be reached at 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.
/YI-SHAN YANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798