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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 18-20) in the reply filed on May 1, 2026 is acknowledged. However, claims 1-20 have since been cancelled by the amendment dated May 4, 2026 and replaced with new claims 21-40.
Claims 21-40 are being examined in this Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 22, 25, 29, 32, 36, and 38 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 22 recites “wherein the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to segment at least one cardiac anatomical structure from the ultrasound imaging data….” Claim 21 recites instructions that cause the surgical imaging system to “determine spatial information corresponding to one or more cardiac anatomical structures.” It is not clear if the “at least one cardiac anatomical structure” refers to the previously recited cardiac anatomical structures or a different anatomical structure. Claims 29 and 36 have a similar recitation.
For the purposes of a compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting claim 22 as follows: “wherein the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to segment at least one of the one or more cardiac anatomical structures from the ultrasound imaging data….”
Claims 29 and 36 will be interpreted in a similar manner.
Claim 25 recites “wherein the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to determine a position of a device relative to the one or more cardiac anatomical structures and display an overlay corresponding to the position of the device on the real-time representation.” The recited “device” is overly broad as it could be anything. Claims 32 and 38 have a similar recitation.
For the purposes of a compact prosecution, Examiner is interpreting claim 25 as follows: “wherein the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to determine a position of a device relative to the one or more cardiac anatomical structures and display an overlay corresponding to the position of the device on the real-time representation, wherein the device is at least one of a medical, surgical, or interventional device.”
Claims 32 and 38 will be interpreted in a similar manner.
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 21-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite or similarly recite:
[a] determine spatial information corresponding to one or more cardiac anatomical structures based at least in part on first ultrasound imaging data from the first imaging source and second ultrasound imaging data from the second imaging source, as recited in claims 21, 28, 35;
[b] generate a real-time representation of the one or more cardiac anatomical structures based at least in part on the spatial information, as recited in claims 21, 28, 35;
[c] segment at least one cardiac anatomical structure from the ultrasound imaging data, as recited in claims 22, 29, 36;
[d] determine a position or orientation of the first imaging source relative to the second imaging source, as recited in claims 23, 30, 37;
[e] determine a position of a device relative to the one or more cardiac anatomical structures, as recited in claims 25, 32, 39;
[f] display an overlay corresponding to the position of the device on the real-time representation, as recited in claims 25, 32, 39;
Claim limitation [a], as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical concept. Claim limitation [a] recites a mathematical concept because determining spatial information corresponding to one or more cardiac anatomical structures based on ultrasound data includes using algorithms to analyze ultrasound signal data (e.g., thresholding the signal intensities to identify the bone and other anatomical structures). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I) (see, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea).
Claim limitation [b], as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical concept. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I). Claim limitation [b] recites a mathematical concept because generating a real-time representation of the one or more cardiac anatomical structures based at least in part on the spatial information includes transforming ultrasound image data into a three-dimensional space, constructing a three-dimensional point cloud, among other image-generating algorithms. (see, e.g., MPEP 2106.04(a)(2): “It is important to note that a mathematical concept need not be expressed in mathematical symbols, because “[w]ords used in a claim operating on data to solve a problem can serve the same purpose as a formula.” In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 837 and n.1, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1826 and n.1 (Fed. Cir. 1989).”).
Claim limitation [c], as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical concept. Claim limitation [c] recites a mathematical concept because segmenting at least one cardiac anatomical structure from the ultrasound imaging data requires image analysis (i.e., algorithms) to identify anatomical structure (e.g., thresholding the signal intensities to identify cardiac anatomical structure). (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), I) (see, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Elecs. for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (holding that claims to a “process of organizing information through mathematical correlations” are directed to an abstract idea).
Claim limitation [d], as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical concept and/or mental process. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (see, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (although the claims did not recite a particular mathematical formula, the court held “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”)). The claim limitation is a mental process because determining a position or orientation of the first imaging source relative to the second imaging source is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that surgeons have used since incorporating videos into surgical procedures. The claim limitation is also mathematical concept because, in the context of surgical navigation systems that register different coordinate systems, the claim requires tracking the imaging sources using various mathematical calculations, such as those used for triangulation, rigid transformations, and best-fit alignment (e.g., using least squares), to determine the positions of the imaging sources.
Claim limitation [e], as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical concept and/or mental process. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (see, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (although the claims did not recite a particular mathematical formula, the court held “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”)). The claim limitation is a mental process because determining a position of a device relative to one or more cardiac anatomical structures is an observation, evaluation, judgment, or opinion that surgeons have used since incorporating videos into surgical procedures. The claim limitation is also a mathematical concept because, in the context of surgical navigation systems, the claim requires tracking the device relative to anatomical structures using various mathematical calculations, such as those used for triangulation, rigid transformations, and best-fit alignment (e.g., using least squares), to determine the position of the device.
Claim limitation [f], as drafted and under its broadest reasonable interpretation, recites a mathematical concept. (MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I) (see, e.g., Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Electronics for Imaging, Inc., 758 F.3d 1344, 1350, 111 USPQ2d 1717, 1721 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (although the claims did not recite a particular mathematical formula, the court held “[w]ithout additional limitations, a process that employs mathematical algorithms to manipulate existing information to generate additional information is not patent eligible.”)). This claim limitation requires various mathematical concepts and calculations, such as converting physical coordinates to pixel or voxel coordinates, resampling/interpolating (e.g., using nearest neighbor, trilinear, or spline interpolation), and rendering the images, to generate images that superimpose an overlay over a real-time representation.
The next question is to consider whether the claims integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. A claim that integrates a judicial exception into a practical application will apply, rely on, or use the judicial exception in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04(d)). In this case, some additional elements/steps to consider include that:
(1) a display device;
(2) one or more processors;
(3) memory storing instructions;
(4) the step of receiving ultrasound imaging data;
(5) the step of displaying a real-time representation.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. For example, the display device is a generic component to perform an insignificant post-solution activity. (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The one or more processors and memory are generic computer components for storing and executing the judicial exception. (MPEP 2106.04(d)). The steps of receiving ultrasound imaging data and displaying the real-time representations are insignificant extra-solution activities. (MPEP 2106.04(d)). Moreover, the combination of the above only generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., surgical navigation).
The claims do not include additional elements/steps that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. A shared quality of the additional elements and/or steps is that they do not recite any meaningful limitation that transforms the judicial exception into a patent-eligible application. (MPEP 2106.05(II)). As explained above, the additional elements and/or steps either recite generic components or insignificant extra-solution activity. Moreover, these additional element/steps are well-understood, routine, conventional activities that are known to the industry. (see, e.g., Section 103 rejection below).
Accordingly, the claims do not recite patent-eligible subject matter.
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.
Claims 21, 23, 24, 26-28, 31, 33-35, 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0090842 A1 (hereinafter “KORUKONDA”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,120,453 A (hereinafter “SHARP”).
KORUKONDA relates to “spatially registering ultrasound probes for the purpose of image fusion between the images generated using the probes.” ([0002]). KORUKONDA teaches that “[u]ltrasound positioning of intra-body instruments equipped with transducers are employed to track 3D positions of one or more ultrasound transmitter/receivers. This can be used to determine and track a 2D or 3D pose (e.g., position and orientation) of one or several probes with respect to each other. Once registered to a common coordinate system, image processing may be employed to expand the visualization capabilities of the system. The present principles enable real-time registration of multiple ultrasound probes in space and time permitting multi-perspective imaging.” ([0018]). KORUKONDA also teaches that the “present principles” can be used with “intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)….”
With respect to claim 21, claim 28, and claim 35, KORUKONDA teaches a surgical imaging system (see, e.g., [0018] as described above) for cardiac imaging during a cardiac procedure. KORUKONDA also teaches that the “present principles” can be used with “intracardiac echocardiography (ICE)….” ([0035]).
a display device. See, e.g., “display device 118” shown in Figure 1 and described at [0034].
one or more processors and a memory storing instructions (see, e.g., “one or more processors 114” and “memory 116” shown in Figure 1 and described at [0026]) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the surgical imaging system to:
receive ultrasound imaging data from at least two imaging sources including a first imaging source and a second imaging source. See, e.g., [0026]-[0028]. One or more workstations (or a single workstation) may be “employed for multiple probes 12, 14.” Notably, the multiple probes are multiple imaging sources. “[M]ultiple ultrasound probes 12, 14 are employed in conjunction with one another to provide improved anatomy visualization. For example, in echocardiography, an internal transesophageal echo (TEE) probe 14 can provide detailed small fields of view within a heart (volume 130) while an external transthoracic echo (TTE) probes 12 can provide anatomical context for improved visualization. These probes 12, 14 can be registered to each other to using ultrasound signaling therebetween to synchronize acquisition and visualization.” ([0027]).
generate a real-time representation of the one or more cardiac anatomical structures based at least in part on the spatial information. The KORUKONDA system is configured to “register multiple image volumes in a common reference space or coordinate system 132 for incoherent volume compounding.” ([0028]). “The image generation module 148 may stitch or fuse images obtained from multiple probes 12, 14 to create a single view….” ([0029]). The images are “real-time” representations. (see, e.g., [0018] and [0045]).
cause display, on the display device, of the real-time representation during the cardiac procedure. See, e.g., [0029] as discussed above. The viewing configurations may be “a single compound view, which combines received data from multiple probes, multiple pane views including separate images for each probe, fused images from the probes or any combination thereof.” ([0034]). See also: “Once the relative positions and orientations of the probes 12, 14 are known, the images from both probes 12, 14 can be displayed in the same coordinate system. The individual images can be superimposed on a single display, with each probe providing a resolution in a small area or wider area.” ([0037]).
However, KORUKONDA does not explicitly teach causing the surgical imaging system to determine spatial information corresponding to one or more cardiac anatomical structures based at least in part on first ultrasound imaging data from the first imaging source and second ultrasound imaging data from the second imaging source. Nonetheless, KORUKONDA is clearly concerned with displaying relevant anatomical images to the user as discussed above that are derived from two ultrasound probes.
In the same field of endeavor, SHARP teaches a three-dimensional ultrasound system based on the coordination of multiple ultrasonic transducers. (Title). The system used two probes. “Each of the two ultrasound probes may generate different views of the same structure. Such complimentary, and possibly simultaneous, views allow for greater precision and clearer three-dimensional images, as well as provide for more rapid accumulation of data.” (Abstract).
SHARP teaches that the ultrasound data from the different probes can be analyzed to identify anatomical structures that were captured by each probe. “The computer control unit 6 that is processing the data preferably works under commands only to use data points or pixels 38 seen in two different slices taken through the same point in space at the same time relative to the electrocardiogram 40.” (Column 12, lines 9-13). SHARP teaches using this spatial information to identify the structures. “These certain structures might include the left ventricle, the right ventricle and the descending aorta. In other words, using known relationships of anatomy, the computer is easily taught the probability of certain items at certain positions being certain structures. Such image recognition software is currently in use in many circumstances, for example, with known technology which automatically detects the border of the left ventricle, such as that available from the Hewlett Packard Co. of Palo Alto, Calif. Using this simplest anatomy recognition program readily allows for a three-dimensional construction of the inside of the left ventricle and the aorta.” (Column 12, lines 29-38).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the KORUKONDA system to determine spatial information corresponding to one or more cardiac anatomical structures based at least in part on first ultrasound imaging data from the first imaging source and second ultrasound imaging data from the second imaging source. One would have been motivated to determine spatial information corresponding to one or more cardiac anatomical structures so that the imaging data could be combined because “[s]uch complimentary, and possibly simultaneous, views allow for greater precision and clearer three-dimensional images, as well as provide for more rapid accumulation of data.” (Abstract). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as SHARP teaches that image data from two different ultrasound probes can be combined to form a composite image, such as a 3D image.
NOTE: Claim 28 recites a computer-implemented method for cardiac imaging during a cardiac procedure and recites the same steps performed by the processor of claim 21. Claim 35 recites a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a surgical imaging system, cause the surgical imaging system to perform the same steps recited in claims 21 and 28.
With respect to claim 23 and claim 37, KORUKONDA teaches that the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to determine a position or orientation of the first imaging source relative to the second imaging source. “Ultrasound positioning of intra-body instruments equipped with transducers are employed to track 3D positions of one or more ultrasound transmitter/receivers. This can be used to determine and track a 2D or 3D pose (e.g., position and orientation) of one or several probes with respect to each other.” ([0018]). “Once the locations (e.g., distance and direction) of the probes 12, 14 are known with respect to one another, a coordinate transformation can be generated by the position calibration module 150 to register all probes in the same coordinate space 132.” ([0031]).
With respect to claim 24, KORUKONDA teaches that the real-time representation comprises a three-dimensional representation that is updated based on subsequently received ultrasound imaging data. “[M]ultiple images from one probe can be stitched into a reference frame of the other probe over time to create a larger image 200 with a larger field of view. Alternately, the stitching may be employed to aid in seeing tissue motion over time (e.g., cardiac or lung motion).” ([0046]). The real-time representation may be a 3D representation. “The locations are updated by the position calibration module 150 to generate transformation matrices or other position indicators to register multiple image volumes in a common reference space or coordinate system 132 for incoherent volume compounding….” ([0028]; see also [0047] and [0052]).
With respect to claim 26, claim 33, and claim 39, KORUKONDA teaches that the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to display first information associated with a first anatomical region in a first display region and second information associated with a second anatomical region in a second display region. “This may include side-by side displays or compound images generated by fusing or stitching together image data received from the probes into a single image (or multiple images) for display. Ultrasound images and/or information can be combined from all or some probes to display on screen.” ([0061]). NOTE: Side-by-side displays include at least a first display region and a second display region. Because the different probes would have different positions (see, e.g., ultrasound probes 12 and 14 in Figure 3), the displayed anatomical regions would be different (i.e., first and second anatomical regions). The different images of the different anatomical regions would provide different information of those anatomical regions. For example, Figure 4 shows “six images 188-198” of “a heart phantom….” ([0044]).
With respect to claim 27, claim 34, and claim 40, KORUKONDA teaches that the ultrasound imaging data is received from three or more imaging sources. See Figures 1 and 3 showing three ultrasound probes 12, 12, and 14.
With respect to claim 31, KORUKONDA teaches generating the real-time representation comprises updating the real-time representation over a plurality of cardiac cycles based on subsequently received ultrasound imaging data. “[M]ultiple images from one probe can be stitched into a reference frame of the other probe over time to create a larger image 200 with a larger field of view. Alternately, the stitching may be employed to aid in seeing tissue motion over time (e.g., cardiac or lung motion).” ([0046]). The real-time representation may be a 3D representation. “The locations are updated by the position calibration module 150 to generate transformation matrices or other position indicators to register multiple image volumes in a common reference space or coordinate system 132 for incoherent volume compounding….” ([0028]; see also [0047] and [0052]).
However, KORUKONDA does not explicitly teach receiving information over a plurality of cardiac cycles. SHARP teaches that multiple cardiac cycles can be acquired. “In this device, the moving image of the heart 22 is obtained from any number of cardiac cycles and the final moving image is an ‘averaged’ three-dimensional image of the heart, the view being averaged over the amount of cardiac cycles it takes to acquire the data.” (Column 10, lines 7-12).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the KORUKONDA system to update the real-time representation over a plurality of cardiac cycles based on subsequently received ultrasound imaging data. KORUKONDA already teaches that the system can be used to image the heart over time. One would have been motivated to image the hear over time to acquire images of multiple cardiac cycles in order to evaluate the functioning of the heart. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as SHARP teaches that image data from two probes can be acquired over multiple cardiac cycles.
Claims 22, 29, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0090842 A1 (hereinafter “KORUKONDA”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,120,453 A (hereinafter “SHARP”) as applied to claims 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2021/0093292 A1 (hereinafter “BARAM”).
KORUKONDA does not explicitly teach that the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to segment at least one cardiac anatomical structure from the ultrasound imaging data, and wherein the real-time representation is generated based at least in part on the segmented at least one cardiac anatomical structure.
In the same field of endeavor, BARAM teaches systems, apparatuses and methods that include a catheter configured to be inserted into an intra-body cavity of a patient. ([0005]). After capturing ultrasound image data from within heart chambers, BARAM teaches segmenting an intra-body chamber (e.g., endocardial) border. ([0093]). “A region growing algorithm is used to provide boundary voxels between the free space and the chamber tissue.” ([0093]). “[T]he segmented intra-body chamber is rendered via a display.” ([0094]). Notably, segmented boundaries “can be tracked in time to provide real-time movement imaging.” ([0086]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the KORUKONDA system to segment at least one cardiac anatomical structure from the ultrasound imaging data and to use the segmented structure when generating the real-time representation. One would have been motivated to segment the anatomical structures to track the structures “in time to provide real-time movement imaging.” ([0086]). There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as BARAM teaches that cardiac anatomical structures can be segmented from the image data.
Claims 25, 32, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0090842 A1 (hereinafter “KORUKONDA”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,120,453 A (hereinafter “SHARP”) as applied to claims 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2008/0287803 A1 (hereinafter “ALEX LI”).
KORUKONDA does not explicitly teach that the instructions further cause the surgical imaging system to determine a position of a device relative to the one or more cardiac anatomical structures and display an overlay corresponding to the position of the device on the real-time representation.
In the same field of endeavor, ALEX LI teaches an intracardiac echocardiography image reconstruction in combination with position tracking system. (Title). ALEX LI teaches a “tracking system 125 is generally operable to track or detect the position of the tool or ICE catheter 105 relative to the acquired image data or 3D or 4D reconstructed image or model generated by the image acquisition system 115….” ([0026]). The system can register or calibrate the location (position and/or orientation) of tracking elements “relative to the acquired imaging data” and is operable to “generate a graphic representation suitable to visualize the location of the tracking elements 185, 190, 195, 200 relative to the acquired image data.” ([0029]). Note that the tracking elements are attached to the catheters. ([0031]).
ALEX LI further describes displaying an overlay of the catheter relative to the anatomy. The system includes a GUI 371 that is configured to “display of a generally real-time 3D or 4D ICE image model 362 created from the acquired anatomical data” and “display detected/identified locations or representations thereof of at least one instrument catheter 105 or 184 relative to the illustrated, real-time 3D or 4D ICE image model 362.” ([0057]). ALEX LI also describes displaying the real-time 3D or 4D ICE image “superimposed or combined relative to” representations of the tracked catheters with the 4D ICE model. ([0066]).
Notably, displaying the position of the catheter provides certain advantages for guiding the surgeon. “In general, as a surgeon moves the medical instrument with respect to the patient's anatomy, virtual images of the instrument or object are displayed simultaneously relative to real-time acquired image data represented in the model of the patient's anatomy.” ([0006]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the KORUKONDA system to determine a position of a device relative to the one or more cardiac anatomical structures and display an overlay corresponding to the position of the device on the real-time representation. One would have been motivated to track the catheters/probes and display their positions relative to the cardiac anatomical structures in order to better guide the surgeon during the procedure. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as ALEX LI teaches that tools can be tracked and shown relative to anatomical models.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0090842 A1 (hereinafter “KORUKONDA”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,120,453 A (hereinafter “SHARP”) as applied to claims 21, 28, and 35 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Appl. Publ. No. 2019/0200886 A1 (hereinafter “WELSH”).
KORUKONDA does not explicitly teach filtering motion artifact associated with physiological movement before generating the real-time representation.
In the same field of endeavor, WELSH teaches filtering motion artifact associated with physiological movement before generating the real-time representation. ([0231]-[0243]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the KORUKONDA system to filter motion artifact associated with physiological movement before generating the real-time representation. One would have been motivated to filter motion artifact in order to provide a smoother image for viewing by the user. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success as WELSH teaches that image data can be filtered.
Prior Art Made of Record
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fronheiser, M. R., et al. "Real-time, 3-D ultrasound with multiple transducer arrays." ieee transactions on ultrasonics, ferroelectrics, and frequency control 53.1 (2006): 100-105. (hereinafter “FRONHEISER”). FRONHEISER teaches using two separate intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) catheter probes in which one is a side-scanning catheter and the other is a forward-viewing catheter. (Abstract). The two catheters enable near simultaneous 3D scanning of the same region. (Abstract).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON P GROSS whose telephone number is (571)272-1386. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00CT.
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, Anne M. Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-5284. 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.
/JASON P GROSS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights