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 .
Receipt of Applicant’s Amendment filed December 24, 2025, is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1, 6-9, 15, 24, and 30 have been amended. Claims 2, 3, 5, 11-14, 16-19, 25-29, and 31-39 have been canceled. Claims 40-45 are new. Claims 1, 4, 6-10, 15, 20-24, 30, and 40-45 are pending and are provided to be examined upon their merits.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 15, 20-24, 30, and 40-45 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A response is provided below in bold where appropriate.
Applicant argues Priority, starting pg. 13 of Remarks:
I. Priority
Applicant submits an English language translation of the certified copy of Chinese Patent Application No. 202111011700.7, filed on August 31, 2021, and Chinese Application No. 202111004268.9, filed on August 30, 2021. These Chinese Patent Applications are the basis for Applicant's claim for priority, which was made upon filing of the above-identified U.S. application on February 29, 2024. The English language translation of the certified copy of the priority documents is accurate. II. Rejection under
Noted and entered.
From 37 CFR 1.55 (g)
“(4) If an English language translation of a non-English language foreign application is required, it must be filed together with a statement that the translation of the certified copy is accurate.”
The filed translations state “The attached documents are true and complete translations…” This is interpreted as the translation of the certified copy is accurate.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 Rejection, starting pg. 14 of Remarks:
35 U.S.C. 101
Claims 1-11, 15, 20-26, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as allegedly being directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejections.
Amended claims are patent-eligible under the two-part test outlined in Alice Corp. Ply Ltd. v. BLS Bank Intl.2 In particular, under Step 2A, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea.
Without conceding to the allegations of the Office, and merely to advance the prosecution of the present application, Applicant has amended claims 1 and 15 to make them clear that the claimed invention is not directed to any of the judicial exceptions enumerated in the MPEP 2106.04, subsection ll, thereby warranting patent protection.
Step 2A. The Claimed Invention Is Not Directed to an Abstract Idea Prong one:
The Office asserts that the claims fall in performanceof the limitationascertain methodsoforganizing human activity and mental process.Office Action, pages 3-4.
Applicant respectfully disagrees.
Applicant argues Claim 1 where the rejection for Clam 1 is now removed based on the claim amendments, rendering the arguments to claim 1 moot.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 for Claim 15, starting pg. 16 of Remarks:
Claim 15
Claim15, as amended, recites:
A system for controlling an interface of a medical imaging device, comprising:
at least one processor, and
a display device configured to display a user interface including an interface component, wherein
the interface component corresponds to one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device or one or more operations performed on the medical imaging device;
the at least one processor is configured to control the medical imaging device based on an operation performed by a user on the interface component;
a type of the interface component includes at least one of an application, an application widget, or a program dock; and
the at least one processor is further configured to
obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface: and
automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least
one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device.
By this amendment, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed invention relates to the automatic adjustment of the layout of interface components (applications, application widgets, program docks) in the user interface, which must be rooted in computer technology to overcome problems that arise specifically in the user interface.
Thus, amended claim15 is eligible because it is not directed to the recited judicial exception.
Rooted in computer technology is not improving computer technology. There is also no improvement to interface technology.
Applicant argues Prong Two, starting pg. 17 of Remarks:
Prong Two:
In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that even if the amended independent claim 1 is directed to a judicial exception, the judicial exception is integrated into a practical application.
As explained in the USPTO Guidance entitled "2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance," January 7, 2019:
2. Prong Two: If the Claim Recites a Judicial Exception, Evaluate
Whether the Judicial Exception Is Integrated Into a Practical
Application
In Prong Two, examiners should evaluate whether the claim as a whole integrates the recited judicial exception into a practical application of the exception. 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. When the exception is SO integrated, then the claim is not directed to a judicial exception (Step 2A: NO) and is eligible. This concludes the eligibility analysis. If the additional elements do not integrate the exception into a practical application, then the claim is directed to the judicial exception (Step 2A: YES), and requires further analysis under Step 2B (where it may still be eligible if it amounts to an inventive concept), as explained in Section III.B of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. (Emphases added)
Applicant argues Claim 1 below, where the rejection for Clam 1 is now removed based on the claim amendments, rendering their arguments to claim 1 moot.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 for Claim 15, starting pg. 21 of Remarks:
Claim 15
Amended claim 15, "the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device".
According to paragraph [0003] of the present invention, "a user operates the medical imaging device through a user interface where positions and sequences of functional control buttons on a common user interface are fixed. In this setup, there may not be enough space on a main interface when expansion is needed, the functional control buttons may not match a current operation of the user, and the functional control buttons may not be adjusted based on an operation habit of the user".
Applicant’s argument above about space is not commensurate with the scope of their claim. Further, the above user operates the imaging device is abstract as following rules or instructions.
According to paragraph [0300] of the present invention, "configuring and adjusting the layout of the user interface of the medical imaging device through various interface components increases the flexibility of the layout of the user interface of the medical imaging device, enhances application scalability, reduces redundant information, simplifies operating procedures, improves operational efficiency, facilitates user operations, and enhance user efficiency".
The above is an intended result or an effect, that may or may not happen.
It can be seen that the above-mentioned features of amended claim 1 can achieve the above-mentioned technical effects, linking judicial exceptions with the automatic adjustment of the layout of the user interface, thereby integrating judicial exceptions into practical applications. These claim limitations recite a specific application that improves the functioning of the basic interface display function of the computer itself, and improves the ability of the computer to display interface information and interact with the user.
Therefore, amended claim 15, as a whole, integrates judicial exceptions into practical applications.
See MPEP 2106.05(a) I viii Trading Technologies v. IBG LLC where arranging information on a graphical user interface to assist traders processing information more quickly was found to be abstract.
Applicant argues Prong 2B, starting pg. 23 of Remarks:
Step 2B. The Claims Meet The "Significantly More" Requirements As discussed above, Applicant's claims are not directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the "significantly more" inquiry under the Alice test does not even apply to Applicant's claims.³ Even assuming arguendo that the pending claims are directed to an abstract idea, which Applicant does not concede, the Office fails to satisfy the "significantly more" inquiry of Step 2B.
As noted in MPEP 2106.05, courts have specified limitations found to qualify as "significantly more" when recited in a claim with a judicial exception. These limitations include:
(i) improvements to the functioning of a computer;
(ii) improvements to any other technology or technical field;
(iii) applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine;
(iv) effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing;
(v) adding a specific limitation other than what is well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field or adding unconventional steps that confine the claim to a particular useful application; or
(vi) Other meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. (emphases added)
Applicant argues Claim 1 below, where the rejection for Clam 1 is now removed based on the claim amendments, rendering their arguments to claim 1 moot.
Applicant argues 35 USC §101 for Claim 15, starting pg. 28 of Remarks:
Claim 15
Amended claim 15 recites "the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device".
Said technical features in amended claim 15 would have advantageous technical effects as follows. By configuring and adjusting the layout of the user interface of the medical imaging device through various interface components increases the flexibility of the layout of the user interface of the medical imaging device, enhances application scalability, reduces redundant information, simplifies operating procedures, improves operational efficiency, facilitates user operations, and enhance user efficiency.
The above configuring and adjusting a layout of the user interface is not improving interface technology itself.
Therefore, amended claim 15 also constitutes the additional element that significantly exceeds judicial exceptions. Thus, these elements provide specific improvements over prior systems. Accordingly, amended claim 15 meets the improvements to any other technology or technical field, and thus qualifies as "significantly more" under M.P.E.P. § 2106.05."
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Independent claim 30, as amended, recites features similar to those of amended claim 15, and thus, contain the same limitations that qualify as "Significantly More" for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to amended claim 15 and for the additional features cited therein.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 11, 25, and 26 are cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer, thereby rendering the rejection thereof moot.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claims 1, 15, and 30, as well as the dependent claims 4, 6-10, 20-24, and 40-45, meet the "Significantly More" requirements.
The rejection is respectfully maintained but modified for the claim amendments.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103, starting pg. 29 of Remarks:
III. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yang and Kim
Applicant argues Claim 1 rejection, which has been withdrawn based on the claim amendments, rendering their arguments moot. However, the amendments have caused a new 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant argues 35 USC §103, starting pg. 45 of Remarks:
IX. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yang and Gao
Claims 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being
unpatentable over Yang in view of Gao. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Without conceding to the merits of the rejections and solely to expedite prosecution of the present invention, Applicant has amended claim 15. Specially, independent claim 15, as amended, "the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device".
Applicant respectfully submits that Yang and Gao, either alone or in combination, do not disclose the claimed combination including at least the above features; neither do they render obvious the claimed invention.
Respectfully, claims 15 and 30 are very broad, they would read on just about any medical device with an interface where a user interacts with the interface. For example, a user can login to a medical device interface such as a computer (Fig. 9(a), computer screen), and the screen would automatically change.
Based on paragraphs [0009] and [0051] of Yang, it is clear that Yang only discloses the function corresponding to storing fingerprints. When the user's fingerprint is detected, the function corresponding to the fingerprint is executed. Yang does not involve automatically adjusting the user interface layout of medical imaging device based on user operation data of the user or a system policy.
Accordingly, Yang does not disclose or suggest the above features.
Claims 15 and 30 do not recite a fingerprint, so it is unclear what applicant is arguing. If the above is important, it should be in the claims.
From Yang…
Display guide information related to (therefore, adjust initial layout) fingerprint detected (automatically, from user operation data)…
“The display 260 according to the exemplary embodiment may display guide information related to a function corresponding to a fingerprint detected by the input device 290. Also, when the display 260 is configured as a touch screen, the guide information related to the function may be displayed at a point where the fingerprint is detected.” [0074]
Yang teaches display guide related to function corresponding to fingerprint detected. This would automatically adjust the display.
Gao relates to a user interface display method of a terminal. Gao, abstract.
Specifically, Gao recites:
If the user stops operating the terminal (for example, the finger leaves the fingerprint sensor or the touchscreen) after unlocking the terminal by using the first operation, the terminal displays the second user interface. The second UI is the same as an interface displayed after the user unlocks the terminal in a conventional technical solution. For example, as shown in FIG. 3C, the second user interface may be a home screen 3 of an operating system that is displayed after the terminal is powered on. For example, the home screen 3 of the terminal may include a status bar 31, a page 32, and a resident bar (also referred to as a "Dock bar") 33. The page 32 is used to display an APP icon, a widget (widget), a file icon, a folder icon, or another shortcut used to trigger execution of a function of the terminal. The resident bar 33 is used to display an icon of an application or a function commonly used by the user, for example, an icon of an APP such as "Contacts", "Phone Book", or "Camera". Generally, the status bar 31, the page 32, and the resident bar 33 are respectively listed in upper, middle, and lower parts of the user interface. There may be a plurality of pages, and the displayed page 32 may be switched by using an operation of the user. In a page switching process, the status bar 31 and the resident bar 33 do not switch.
Gao, paragraphs [0105] (emphases added).
It can be seen that Gao only discloses that the persistent bar is used to display the app icon, and widgets are used to open (multiple) applications to perform corresponding functions. Gao does not involve automatically adjusting the user interface layout of medical imaging device based on user operation data of the user or a system policy.
Accordingly, Gao does not disclose or suggest the above features.
Gao is not required to teach the features.
It is well settled that establishing a prima facie case of obviousness requires that all claim limitations recited in a claim must be taught or suggested by the prior art. MPEP § 2143.03. Clearly, the cited references, Yang and Gao, either alone or in any combination, do not pass this muster. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness cannot be established, and therefore, claim 15 is patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yang and Gao.
Claims 20 and 21 directly depend on independent claim 15, and therefore include all the features of their respective base claims. Thus, claims 20 and 21 are also patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for at least the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 15, and for the additional features recited therein.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office reconsider and withdraw the rejections of claims 15, 20, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yang and Gao.
X. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yang, Gao, and Ahn
Claims 22-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Yang in view of Gao and further in view of Ahn. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
As set forth above, independent claim 15 is patentable over Yang in view of Gao. Applicant respectfully submits that Ahn does not remedy the deficiencies of Yang and Gao set forth above.
Ahn is directed to methods and apparatuses are provided for executing a function of an electronic device using fingerprint verification. Ahn, abstract. However, Ahn does not disclose or suggest "the at least one processor is further configured Response to Non-Final Office Action to obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device" recited in amended claim 15.
The above is taught by Yang.
Dependent claims 22-24 directly depend from independent claim 1, respectively, and therefore include all the features of their respective base claims. Thus, claims 22-24 are also patentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for at least the same reasons as stated above with respect to independent claim 1, and for the additional features recited therein.
The above is taught by Yang.
Claim 25 is cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer, thereby rendering the rejection thereof moot.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office reconsider and withdraw the rejections of claims 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yang, Gao, and Ahn.
XI. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yang, Gao, Ahn, and Kim
Claim 26 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Yang in view of Gao in view of Ahn and further in view of Kim. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
As set forth above, independent claim 15 is patentable over Yang in view of Gao and Ahn. Applicant respectfully submits that Kim does not remedy the deficiencies of Yang, Gao, and Ahn set forth above.
Specifically, Kim does not disclose or suggest "the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device" recited in amended claim 15.
Claim 26 is cancelled without prejudice or disclaimer, thereby rendering the rejection thereof moot.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office reconsider and withdraw the rejections of claims 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yang, Gao, Ahn, and Kim.
XII. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based on Yang and Gao
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as allegedly being unpatentable over Yang in view of Gao. Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection.
Without conceding to the merits of the rejections and solely to expedite prosecution of the present invention, Applicant has amended claim 30. Specially, independent claim 30, as amended, "the at least one processor is further configured to obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device".
As pointed out above, Yang teaches adjust layout of the interface.
As described above, Yang and Gao fail to disclose each and every element of amended claim 15. Independent claim 30, although of different scope, recites similar features to amended claim 15, and thus, also is patentable over Yang and Gao for at least the reasons set forth above with respect to amended claim 15 and for the additional features cited therein.
Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests that the Office reconsider and withdraw the rejections of claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Yang and Gao.
The rejection is respectfully maintained. See Figs. 9(a) and 9(b) of the instant specification that teaches essentially a computer interface with a medical device attached. Respectfully, neither a generic medical device nor a computer interface are novel.
XIII. New claims 40-45
New claims 40-45 directly depend from independent claims 1 and 15, and therefore includes include all its features. Thus, new claims 40-45 are also patentable for the reasons set forth above and the additional features cited therein.
A rejection is provided to claim 45. The rejection to claims 1, 4, 6-10, 40-44 is withdrawn, however, the amendments have resulted in new 35 USC 112 rejections.
35 USC § 101 Analysis
The Examiner has identified method Claim 1 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis of claims 1, 4, 6-10, 40-44.
Claim 1 recites the limitations of:
A method for controlling an ultrasound device implemented on a computing device having one or more processors and one or more storage devices, wherein the ultrasound device includes a collection device, the collection device includes a touchscreen or one or more buttons provided on the ultrasound device, and the collection device is configured to collect at least one of a fingerprint, a palm print, a protrusion on a surface of a glove, a pattern on a prothesis, a brain wave, or iris information, the method comprising:
obtaining second fingerprint information of a user through the collection device;
matching the second fingerprint information with first fingerprint information to obtain a matching result, including
in response to determining that the ultrasound device is being used by a logged-in user, matching the second fingerprint information with personal fingerprint data in a personal fingerprint database of the logged-in user to obtain a first matching result, and in response to determining that the ultrasound device is not being used by any logged-in user, matching the second fingerprint information with global fingerprint data to obtain a second matching result; wherein the global fingerprint data includes fingerprint information data corresponding to all users related to the ultrasound device;
determining, based on a first mapping relationship and the matching result, an execution function corresponding to the second fingerprint information, wherein the first mapping relationship represents a corresponding relationship between the first fingerprint information and the corresponding execution function of the ultrasound device; and
sending a control signal to the ultrasound device, the control signal directing the ultrasound device to automatically perform an operation of the execution function corresponding to the second fingerprint information.
The above claim recites abstract elements in the area of managing personal behavior by following rules and instructions and mental process as a person in their mind can match first and second fingerprints and determine mapping relationships between a first fingerprint and execution functions. However, the claim further provides sending a control signal to an ultrasound device, the control signal directing the ultrasound device to automatically perform an operation of the execution function. This is interpreted as the ultrasonic device automatically performing an operation based on an execution function and provides a practical application and significantly more. Also, see para. [0076] of the instant specification where fingerprint information simplifies control operations and optimizes the overall process of controlling an ultrasonic device.
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 15, 20-24, 30, and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 15, 20-24, 30, and 45 are directed to a method or system, which are statutory categories of invention. (Step 1: YES).
The Examiner has identified method Claim 30 as the claim that represents the claimed invention for analysis and is similar to system Claim 15.
Claim 30 recites the limitations of:
A method for controlling an interface of a medical imaging device, comprising:
displaying a user interface including an interface component through a display device; and
receiving an operation performed by a user on the interface component through at least one processor and controlling the medical imaging device, wherein
the interface component corresponds to one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device or one or more operations performed on the medical imaging device,
a type of the interface component includes at least one of an application, an application widget, or a program dock; and
the at least one processor is further configured to
obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and
automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device.
These above limitations, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance of the limitation as certain methods of organizing human activity. The claim recites elements, in non-bold above, which covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior. Displaying a user interface, receiving an operation performed by a user on the interface, obtain an initial layout of the interface component, and automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface based on at least one of user operation data of the user is following rules or instructions. The abstract idea is controlling an interface of a medical imaging device (preamble) which requires interaction with a user. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation as managing personal behavior, then it falls within the “Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea. Claim 15 is abstract for similar reasons. (Step 2A-Prong 1: YES. The claim is abstract)
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims only recite: medical imaging device, processor, display device (Claim 15); display device, medical imaging device, processor (Claim 30). The computer hardware is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. The medical imaging device is a generic device recited at a high level of generality is being controlled at a high level, which could be by a person. See Fig. 9(a) of the instant specification where the interface could be just a computer screen, therefore, the interface can be just a computer screen with some type of generic medical device attached to it. The interface component corresponds to one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device or one or more operations performed on the medical imaging device could be just displaying information and is recited at a high level of generality. The type of interface component includes at least one of an application, an application widget, or program dock is just claiming a type of software (graphical user interface?) at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore claims 15 and 30 are directed to an abstract idea without a practical application. (Step 2A-Prong 2: NO. The additional claimed elements are not integrated into a practical application)
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, they do not add significantly more (also known as an “inventive concept”) to the exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using a computer hardware amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The medical device is also generic medical device recited at a high level of generality. Accordingly, these additional elements, when considered separately and as an ordered combination, do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Steps such as obtaining and receiving are steps that are considered insignificant extra solution activity and mere instructions to apply the exception using general computer components (see MPEP 2106.05(d), II). Thus claims 15 and 30 are not patent eligible. (Step 2B: NO. The claims do not provide significantly more)
Dependent claims 20-24 and 45 further define the abstract idea that is present in their independent claim 15 and thus correspond to Certain Methods of Organizing Human Activity and hence are abstract for the reasons presented above. The dependent claims do not include any additional elements that integrate the abstract idea into a practical application or are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception when considered both individually and as an ordered combination. Claims 20, 21, 26 recite medical imaging device at a high level of generality. Claim 24 recites collection device and processor at a high level of generality. Therefore, the claims 20-24 and 45 are directed to an abstract idea. Thus, the claims 15, 20-24, 30, and 45 are not patent-eligible.
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, 4, 6-10, 40-44 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.
Claim 1 recites:
“in response to determining that the ultrasound device is being used by a logged-in user, matching the second fingerprint information with personal fingerprint data in a personal fingerprint database of the logged-in user to obtain a first matching result, and in response to determining that the ultrasound device is not being used by any logged-in user, matching the second fingerprint information with global fingerprint data to obtain a second matching result; wherein the global fingerprint data includes fingerprint information data corresponding to all users related to the ultrasound device;
determining, based on a first mapping relationship and the matching result, an execution function…” where it is indefinite as to the “in response to determining that the ultrasonic device is being used…”
where there is no teaching of first and second matching result, then determining an execution function based on “the matching result.”
From Fig. 7 of the drawings:
PNG
media_image1.png
326
502
media_image1.png
Greyscale
From the specification:
“In some embodiments, when the first matching result is successful, the determination module 1050 may determine first target fingerprint information in the personal fingerprint data (e.g., the first fingerprint information) that matches (e.g., is the same, similar, or close to) the second fingerprint information. Based on a mapping relationship of the personal fingerprint data (e.g., a first mapping relationship), the determination module 1050 may determine a first target execution function corresponding to the first target fingerprint information and designate the first target execution function as the execution function corresponding to the second fingerprint information. A successful first matching result indicates that the second fingerprint information matches (e.g., is the same, similar, or close to) the personal fingerprint data (e.g., of the default user). In other words, the user corresponding to the second fingerprint information is the operator corresponding to the operator state, and accordingly, the user may execute the execution function corresponding to the first mapping relationship to control the ultrasound device to perform the corresponding operation.” [0113]
“In some embodiments, when the second matching result is successful, the determination module 1050 may determine second target fingerprint information in the global fingerprint data that matches the second fingerprint information. Based on a mapping relationship (e.g., a mapping relationship between the fingerprint information of the user corresponding to the second target fingerprint information and the execution function) associated with the second target fingerprint information, the determination module 1050 may determine the second target execution function corresponding to the second target fingerprint information and designate the second target execution function as the execution function corresponding to the second fingerprint information. In some embodiments, the determination module 1050 may update the operator state to be not null. In some embodiments, a successful second matching result may indicate that the user corresponding to the second fingerprint information is one of the users in the global fingerprint database (i.e., the user has an existing mapping relationship), and the determination module 1050 may determine the corresponding execution function for the second fingerprint information based on the existing mapping relationship. In some embodiments, the determination module 1050 may also update the operator state to be not null (or non-null).” [0120]
Therefore, the execution is based on first or second matching results. There is no teaching of a matching to obtain a matching result, then determining first and second matching results, then executing based on the matching result.
Claim 1 recites “sending a control signal to the ultrasound device…” where control signal cannot be found in the written description.
From Applicant’s specification regarding signal:
“The collection device may perform collection in various ways. For example, when fingerprints of the user come into contact with the collection device, the collection device (e.g., the semiconductor capacitance-based collection device) may generate different capacitance values based on varying distances between positions of the fingerprints of the user and the collection device, thereby completing collection of the fingerprints. As another example, when the user wearing a glove with a protrusion on a surface of the glove contacts the collection device, the collection device (e.g., the ultrasonic recognition collection device) may emit a signal of a specific frequency to a part of the glove in contact with the collection device, and complete the collection of the protrusion on the surface of the glove based on a reflected signal.” [0052]
Therefore, signal relates to a glove and ultrasonic device.
Claims 4, 6-10, 40-44 are further rejected as they depend from the independent claim.
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, 4, 6-10, 40-44 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 recites: “A method for controlling an ultrasound device implemented on a computing device having one or more processors and one or more storage devices, wherein the ultrasound device includes a collection device, the collection device includes a touchscreen or one or more buttons provided on the ultrasound device, and the collection device is configured to collect at least one of a fingerprint…”
It is indefinite as to an ultrasonic device implemented on a computing device having processors and storage devices. Further, there is no drawing teaching exactly what the structure of this device is. For examination purposes this is interpreted as an ultrasonic device that includes a computing device.
Claim 1 recites:
”matching the second fingerprint information with first fingerprint information to obtain a matching result, including
in response to determining that the ultrasound device is being used by a logged-in user, matching the second fingerprint information with personal fingerprint data in a personal fingerprint database of the logged-in user to obtain a first matching result, and in response to determining that the ultrasound device is not being used by any logged-in user, matching the second fingerprint information with global fingerprint data to obtain a second matching result; wherein the global fingerprint data includes fingerprint information data corresponding to all users related to the ultrasound device;
determining, based on a first mapping relationship and the matching result, an execution function…” where it is indefinite as to the “in response to determining that the ultrasonic device is being used…”
First, there is no determining step to respond to, therefore, it is indefinite as to what “in response to” is referring. Second, nothing is done with the first matching result and a personal database and the second matching result with the global fingerprint data as the next determining step refers back to the original “matching result” before the “in response to” step, therefore they (first and second matching result) do not further limit the scope of the Claim 1. Third, it is indefinite as to “obtain a matching result” and then obtain other first and second matching results and then executing based on the “matching result.”
Therefore, there is a great deal uncertainty as to proper interpretation of the claim limitation. See MPEP 2173.06 II where it is not proper to reject such a claim on the basis of prior art.
Claim 40 recites “in response to determining that the first matching result is unsuccessful, matching the second fingerprint information with the global fingerprint data to obtain the second matching result” where it is indefinite as to obtain the second matching result when “the second matching result” has already been obtained. For examination purposes this is interpreted as a second matching result based on the device being used and an unsuccessful matching.
Claims 4, 6-10, 40-44 are further rejected as they depend from the independent claim.
Examiner Request
The Applicant is requested to indicate where in the specification there is support for amendments to claims should Applicant amend. The purpose of this is to reduce potential 35 U.S.C. §112(a) or §112 1st paragraph issues that can arise when claims are amended without support in the specification. The Examiner thanks the Applicant in advance.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 15, 20, 21, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pub. No. US 2017/0011252 to Yang et al. in view of Pub. No. US 2023/0017370 to Gao et al.
Regarding claim 15
A system for controlling an interface of a medical imaging device, comprising:
at least one processor, and
Yang et al teaches:
One example of Fig. 2, ref. 32, 34, and 36 as server, medical apparatus (medical imaging device), and portable terminal (processor)…
PNG
media_image2.png
170
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Input for performing a function (controlling) based on fingerprint…
“According to an aspect of an exemplary embodiment, an apparatus for processing medical images includes a storage configured to store fingerprints that respectively correspond to a plurality of functions, a user input unit configured to detect a fingerprint of a user, and a controller configured to perform a function corresponding to the detected fingerprint, from among the functions.” [0009]
Functions directed by (controlling) processing of medical images…
“FIGS. 10A and 10B are diagrams of an example in which different functions are performed according to a direction of a fingerprint detected by an apparatus for processing medical images according to an exemplary embodiment.” [0123]
a display device configured to display a user interface including an interface component, wherein
Fig. 3A as one example of a display device with ref. 331 (interface component)…
PNG
media_image3.png
282
222
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the interface component corresponds to one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device or one or more operations performed on the medical imaging device;
Fig. 3A teaches “Harmonic, Pulse Inv, etc. (functions).
the at least one processor is configured to control the medical imaging device based on an operation performed by a user on the interface component;
For processing medial images…
“The present disclosure relates to an apparatus and method of processing medical images, and more particularly, to an apparatus and method of processing medical images, in which various functions are performed using fingerprints of a user.” [0003]
Example of harmonic function and scanning (control the medical imaging device)…
“The harmonic function is for configuring a screen by only using harmonic components of frequencies in a B mode image. The pulse inv function is for configuring a screen by scanning two times to completely remove fundamentals other than the harmonic components of frequencies in the B mode image and thereby obtaining a harmonic image. The trapezoidal function is for converting a linear image into a trapezoidal image. The M line function is for setting a line for obtaining an M mode image. The dual live function is for simultaneously displaying a 2D image and a color Doppler image, or simultaneously displaying a 2D image and a power Doppler image. The ADVR function is for real-time storage of a certain area of an image displayed on a display in a DVD format by using a built-in recorder in an apparatus for processing medical images, without an additional external DVD recorder, and reproducing the stored image. The color Doppler image photography function is for capturing a color Doppler image that shows blood flow via color. The power Doppler image photography function is for capturing a power Doppler image that shows velocity of blood flow in waveforms.” [0099]
a type of the interface component includes at least one of an application, an application widget, or a program dock.
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative language of at least one of an application widget or a program dock.]
Fig. 3A teaches applications such as Harmonic, Pulse Inv, etc.
See Widget and Dock below.
the at least one processor is further configured to
obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and
Example of generated (initial layout) of an image via graphical user interface…
“The display 260 displays the generated ultrasound image. The display 260 may display not only an ultrasound image, but also various pieces of information processed by the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 200 on a screen image via a graphical user interface (GUI). In addition, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 200 may include two or more displays 260 according to embodiments.” [0070] Inherent with generate (create) an image is an initial layout.
automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device.
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative language of at least one of an application widget or a program dock.]
{
From Applicant’s specification on adjust layout…
“The adjustment module 111022 may be configured to adjust the interface component (e.g., a position, a size, etc.) on the user interface.” [0152]
“In some embodiments, the adjustment to the interface component may be made automatically based on a user level. For example, the user level may include a hospital level, a department level, a doctor level, etc., wherein the hospital level is higher than the department level, and the department level is higher than the doctor level. After adjusting an interface component for a higher-level user (e.g., a hospital-level user), an interface component corresponding to a lower-level user affiliated to the higher-level user is automatically adjusted accordingly.” [0206]
Therefore, automatically adjust interface based on user level.
“The preset rule refers to a rule used for laying out the user interface. In some embodiments, the preset rule may include at least one of user customization 1220-1, determined based on user operation data 1220-2 or based on a system policy 1220-3. In some embodiments, the preset rule may also include other types, such as a user fingerprint information-based rule.” [0177]
There appears to be no definition of “system policy” so this is interpreted as some type of rule.
}
Display guide information related to (therefore, adjust initial layout) fingerprint detected (automatically, from user operation data)…
“The display 260 according to the exemplary embodiment may display guide information related to a function corresponding to a fingerprint detected by the input device 290. Also, when the display 260 is configured as a touch screen, the guide information related to the function may be displayed at a point where the fingerprint is detected.” [0074]
Widget and Dock
The combined references teach applications. They do not teach widget or dock.
Gao et al. also in the business of applications teaches:
Example of dock (resident bar) and widget and resident bar (dock) used to display icon of an APP…
“… For example, the home screen 3 of the terminal may include a status bar 31, a page 32, and a resident bar (also referred to as a “Dock bar”) 33. The page 32 is used to display an APP icon, a widget (widget), a file icon, a folder icon, or another shortcut used to trigger execution of a function of the terminal. The resident bar 33 is used to display an icon of an application or a function commonly used by the user, for example, an icon of an APP such as “Contacts”, “Phone Book”, or “Camera”. Generally, the status bar 31, the page 32, and the resident bar 33 are respectively listed in upper, middle, and lower parts of the user interface. There may be a plurality of pages, and the displayed page 32 may be switched by using an operation of the user. In a page switching process, the status bar 31 and the resident bar 33 do not switch.” [0105]
Widgets to open applications (plural) for execution…
“The shortcuts mean that corresponding functions can be executed when the user triggers these shortcuts. The terminal may display these shortcuts in the UI, to prompt the user to trigger these shortcuts in a preset operation manner. When the terminal detects a preset operation, and determines a correspondence between a specific operation of the user and a displayed shortcut based on a layout of the shortcuts in the UI and the specific operation of the user, the terminal determines the shortcut corresponding to the specific operation, and then executes a corresponding function. For example, the shortcuts include icons and widgets on a page. When the user taps these icons or widgets, corresponding applications, files, or folders can be opened, or corresponding applications can be opened and functions of the applications can be executed.” [0117]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have widgets and docks as taught by Gao et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Gao et al. who teaches the advantages of using such tools for managing information.
Regarding claim 20
The system of claim 15, wherein:
the application corresponds to at least one function of the one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device;
Yang et al teaches:
“The harmonic function is for configuring a screen by only using harmonic components of frequencies in a B mode image. The pulse inv function is for configuring a screen by scanning two times to completely remove fundamentals other than the harmonic components of frequencies in the B mode image and thereby obtaining a harmonic image. The trapezoidal function is for converting a linear image into a trapezoidal image. The M line function is for setting a line for obtaining an M mode image. The dual live function is for simultaneously displaying a 2D image and a color Doppler image, or simultaneously displaying a 2D image and a power Doppler image. The ADVR function is for real-time storage of a certain area of an image displayed on a display in a DVD format by using a built-in recorder in an apparatus for processing medical images, without an additional external DVD recorder, and reproducing the stored image. The color Doppler image photography function is for capturing a color Doppler image that shows blood flow via color. The power Doppler image photography function is for capturing a power Doppler image that shows velocity of blood flow in waveforms.” [0099]
the application widget corresponds to at least one of information related to the application or at least one operation related to the application; and
{
From Applicant’s specification on widget…
“In some embodiments, the application widget 1120-2 refers to a component composed of one or more apps. The application widget 1120-2 may include various combinations of different applications. For example, the application widget 1120-2 may include two apps (App I, App II). As another example, the application widget 1120-2 may include four apps (App 1, App 2, App 3, App 4). By way of example, App I may be a Patient App, and App II may be a Linear Array Probe App. In some embodiments, the application widget 1120-2 may include a widget for one of the functions of the medical imaging device. For example, the application widget 1120-2 may include a Phased Array Probe Widget and a Heart Automatic Measurement Widget. The Phased Array Probe Widget may include multiple preset probes. The Heart Automatic Measurement Widget may include different measurement items. A count of applications included in the application widget 1120-2 may be set according to requirements. More descriptions regarding the application widgets 1120-2 may be found in FIGs. 13, 16, 17, 18 and the relevant descriptions thereof.” [0159]
The widget appears to be some type of single or grouping of applications with a folder or icon of some type?
}
See Widget and Dock below.
‘
the program dock includes one or more of the application and the application widget, and the program dock is displayed on an interface corresponding to the application.
See Widget and Dock below
Widget and Dock
The combined references teach applications. They do not teach widget or dock.
Gao et al. also in the business of applications teaches:
Example of dock (resident bar) and widget and resident bar (dock) used to display icon of an APP…
“… For example, the home screen 3 of the terminal may include a status bar 31, a page 32, and a resident bar (also referred to as a “Dock bar”) 33. The page 32 is used to display an APP icon, a widget (widget), a file icon, a folder icon, or another shortcut used to trigger execution of a function of the terminal. The resident bar 33 is used to display an icon of an application or a function commonly used by the user, for example, an icon of an APP such as “Contacts”, “Phone Book”, or “Camera”. Generally, the status bar 31, the page 32, and the resident bar 33 are respectively listed in upper, middle, and lower parts of the user interface. There may be a plurality of pages, and the displayed page 32 may be switched by using an operation of the user. In a page switching process, the status bar 31 and the resident bar 33 do not switch.” [0105]
Widgets to open applications (plural) for execution…
“The shortcuts mean that corresponding functions can be executed when the user triggers these shortcuts. The terminal may display these shortcuts in the UI, to prompt the user to trigger these shortcuts in a preset operation manner. When the terminal detects a preset operation, and determines a correspondence between a specific operation of the user and a displayed shortcut based on a layout of the shortcuts in the UI and the specific operation of the user, the terminal determines the shortcut corresponding to the specific operation, and then executes a corresponding function. For example, the shortcuts include icons and widgets on a page. When the user taps these icons or widgets, corresponding applications, files, or folders can be opened, or corresponding applications can be opened and functions of the applications can be executed.” [0117]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have widgets and docks as taught by Gao et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Gao et al. who teaches the advantages of using such tools for managing information.
Regarding claim 21
The system of claim 20, wherein the application widget has multiple types, and one of the multiple types corresponds to a sequence of the one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device executed in order, and each function in the sequence corresponds to a function associated with the medical imaging device.
Yang et al teaches:
Example of value decrease or increase by 5 (sequence) and image size adjustment (function associated with imaging device)…
“Whenever a detected fingerprint rotates by an angle, the apparatus 100 according to an exemplary embodiment may adjust an increased or decreased value according to a menu selected with respect to the detected fingerprint. For example, when the selected menu is a menu for adjusting a value within a large range (e.g., the 2D image size adjustment menu may have a size range of 10 to 100), the value may decrease or increase by 5 whenever a detected fingerprint rotates by 10°. Alternatively, when the selected menu is a menu for adjusting the value within a small range (e.g., a clear vision index adjustment menu may have an index range of 1 to 5), the value may decrease or increase by 1 whenever the detected fingerprint rotates by 10°.” [0119]
Widget and Dock
The combined references teach applications. They do not teach widget or dock.
Gao et al. also in the business of applications teaches:
Example of dock (resident bar) and widget and resident bar (dock) used to display icon of an APP…
“… For example, the home screen 3 of the terminal may include a status bar 31, a page 32, and a resident bar (also referred to as a “Dock bar”) 33. The page 32 is used to display an APP icon, a widget (widget), a file icon, a folder icon, or another shortcut used to trigger execution of a function of the terminal. The resident bar 33 is used to display an icon of an application or a function commonly used by the user, for example, an icon of an APP such as “Contacts”, “Phone Book”, or “Camera”. Generally, the status bar 31, the page 32, and the resident bar 33 are respectively listed in upper, middle, and lower parts of the user interface. There may be a plurality of pages, and the displayed page 32 may be switched by using an operation of the user. In a page switching process, the status bar 31 and the resident bar 33 do not switch.” [0105]
Widgets to open applications (plural) for execution (sequence of one function)…
“The shortcuts mean that corresponding functions can be executed when the user triggers these shortcuts. The terminal may display these shortcuts in the UI, to prompt the user to trigger these shortcuts in a preset operation manner. When the terminal detects a preset operation, and determines a correspondence between a specific operation of the user and a displayed shortcut based on a layout of the shortcuts in the UI and the specific operation of the user, the terminal determines the shortcut corresponding to the specific operation, and then executes a corresponding function. For example, the shortcuts include icons and widgets on a page. When the user taps these icons or widgets, corresponding applications, files, or folders can be opened, or corresponding applications can be opened and functions of the applications can be executed.” [0117]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have widgets and docks as taught by Gao et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Gao et al. who teaches the advantages of using such tools for managing information.
Regarding claim 30
A method for controlling an interface of a medical imaging device, comprising:
displaying a user interface including an interface component through a display device; and
Yang et al teaches:
Fig. 3A and displaying an interface component, where user is providing fingerprint (therefore, second fingerprint information)…
PNG
media_image4.png
298
244
media_image4.png
Greyscale
receiving an operation performed by a user on the interface component through at least one processor and controlling the medical imaging device, wherein
Fig. 3A teaches a display (operation).
One example of Fig. 2, ref. 32, 34, and 36 as server, medical apparatus (medical imaging device), and portable terminal (processor)…
PNG
media_image2.png
170
236
media_image2.png
Greyscale
User input (interface for receiving operation by a user) and a controller (thorough a processor) to perform a function…
“According to an aspect of an exemplary embodiment, an apparatus for processing medical images includes a storage configured to store fingerprints that respectively correspond to a plurality of functions, a user input unit configured to detect a fingerprint of a user, and a controller configured to perform a function corresponding to the detected fingerprint, from among the functions.” [0009]
For processing medial images…
“The present disclosure relates to an apparatus and method of processing medical images, and more particularly, to an apparatus and method of processing medical images, in which various functions are performed using fingerprints of a user.” [0003]
the interface component corresponds to one or more functions associated with the medical imaging device or one or more operations performed on the medical imaging device,
Fig. 3A teaches “Harmonic, Pulse Inv, etc. (functions).
a type of the interface component includes at least one of an application, an application widget, or a program dock; and
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative language of at least one of an application widget or a program dock.]
Fig. 3A teaches applications such as Harmonic, Pulse Inv, etc.
the at least one processor is further configured to
obtain an initial layout of the interface component of the user interface; and
Example of generated (initial layout) of an image via graphical user interface…
“The display 260 displays the generated ultrasound image. The display 260 may display not only an ultrasound image, but also various pieces of information processed by the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 200 on a screen image via a graphical user interface (GUI). In addition, the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 200 may include two or more displays 260 according to embodiments.” [0070] Inherent with generate (create) an image is an initial layout.
automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on at least one of user operation data of the user or a system policy of the medical imaging device.
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative claim language where both are not required. In this case, system policy is not required.]
{
From Applicant’s specification on adjust layout…
“The adjustment module 111022 may be configured to adjust the interface component (e.g., a position, a size, etc.) on the user interface.” [0152]
“In some embodiments, the adjustment to the interface component may be made automatically based on a user level. For example, the user level may include a hospital level, a department level, a doctor level, etc., wherein the hospital level is higher than the department level, and the department level is higher than the doctor level. After adjusting an interface component for a higher-level user (e.g., a hospital-level user), an interface component corresponding to a lower-level user affiliated to the higher-level user is automatically adjusted accordingly.” [0206]
Therefore, automatically adjust interface based on user level.
“The preset rule refers to a rule used for laying out the user interface. In some embodiments, the preset rule may include at least one of user customization 1220-1, determined based on user operation data 1220-2 or based on a system policy 1220-3. In some embodiments, the preset rule may also include other types, such as a user fingerprint information-based rule.” [0177]
There appears to be no definition of “system policy” so this is interpreted as some type of rule.
}
Display guide information (therefore, adjust initial layout) based on fingerprint detected (automatically, from user operation data)…
“The display 260 according to the exemplary embodiment may display guide information related to a function corresponding to a fingerprint detected by the input device 290. Also, when the display 260 is configured as a touch screen, the guide information related to the function may be displayed at a point where the fingerprint is detected.” [0074]
Widget and Dock
The combined references teach applications. They do not teach widget or dock.
Gao et al. also in the business of applications teaches:
Example of dock (resident bar) and widget and resident bar (dock) used to display icon of an APP…
“… For example, the home screen 3 of the terminal may include a status bar 31, a page 32, and a resident bar (also referred to as a “Dock bar”) 33. The page 32 is used to display an APP icon, a widget (widget), a file icon, a folder icon, or another shortcut used to trigger execution of a function of the terminal. The resident bar 33 is used to display an icon of an application or a function commonly used by the user, for example, an icon of an APP such as “Contacts”, “Phone Book”, or “Camera”. Generally, the status bar 31, the page 32, and the resident bar 33 are respectively listed in upper, middle, and lower parts of the user interface. There may be a plurality of pages, and the displayed page 32 may be switched by using an operation of the user. In a page switching process, the status bar 31 and the resident bar 33 do not switch.” [0105]
Widgets to open applications (plural) for execution…
“The shortcuts mean that corresponding functions can be executed when the user triggers these shortcuts. The terminal may display these shortcuts in the UI, to prompt the user to trigger these shortcuts in a preset operation manner. When the terminal detects a preset operation, and determines a correspondence between a specific operation of the user and a displayed shortcut based on a layout of the shortcuts in the UI and the specific operation of the user, the terminal determines the shortcut corresponding to the specific operation, and then executes a corresponding function. For example, the shortcuts include icons and widgets on a page. When the user taps these icons or widgets, corresponding applications, files, or folders can be opened, or corresponding applications can be opened and functions of the applications can be executed.” [0117]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have widgets and docks as taught by Gao et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Gao et al. who teaches the advantages of using such tools for managing information.
Claim 22-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references in section (14) above in further view of Pub. No. US 2015/0186710 to Ahn et al.
Regarding claim 22
The system of claim 15, wherein
the interface component is configured to be adjustable based on a user operation, a user level, and/or a user permission.
{
From Applicant’s specification on user level…
“In some embodiments, the adjustment to the interface component may be made automatically based on a user level. For example, the user level may include a hospital level, a department level, a doctor level, etc., wherein the hospital level is higher than the department level, and the department level is higher than the doctor level. After adjusting an interface component for a higher-level user (e.g., a hospital level user), an interface component corresponding to a lower-level user affiliated to the higher-level user is automatically adjusted accordingly.” [0206]
Therefore, level relates to how is using the device.
}
Yang et al teaches:
Example of images and communicate different imaging apparatus (adjustable based on user operation) with hospital, medical doctor, and patient (user levels)…
“The communication module 270 may transmit or receive data related to diagnosis of an object, e.g., an ultrasound image, ultrasound data, and Doppler data of the object, via the network 30 and may also transmit or receive medical images captured by another medical apparatus, e.g., a computed tomography (CT) apparatus, a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) apparatus, or an X-ray apparatus. Furthermore, the communication module 270 may receive information about a diagnosis history or medical treatment schedule of a patient from a server and utilizes the received information to diagnose the patient. Furthermore, the communication module 270 may perform data communication not only with a server or a medical apparatus in a hospital, but also with a portable terminal of a medical doctor or patient.” [0076]
Adjustment based on finger detected for a predetermined time…
“When the fingerprint of the right hand index finger is detected for a predetermined time or longer, the apparatus 100 may perform the TGC adjustment function. For example, as shown in FIG. 7B, when an ultrasound image is displayed on the touch screen, the user may draw a TGC curve 730 by touching and dragging on the ultrasound image based on a point 725 where the fingerprint has been detected. Based on the TGC curve 730, the apparatus 100 may set a TGC value according to a depth of the ultrasound image.” [0110]
See Permission below.
Permission
The combined references teach fingerprint. They do not teach level or permission.
Ahn et al. also in the business of fingerprint teaches:
Determining security level based on matching points of fingerprint, where function to be executed requires (corresponds to) fingerprint verification (permission)…
“When the function to be executed requires fingerprint verification, the electronic device 100 acquires the security level for the function to be executed by the user, in operation 204. The security level and the minimum number of matching points corresponding thereto may vary depending upon the function. For example, a security level for an unlock function may be a third level, and a security level for a payment function may be a first level. The minimum number of matching points at the third level may be different from that at the first level. For example, the minimum number of matching points may be set to sixteen in the third level and to thirty two in the first level. The above example does not restrict various embodiments of the present invention.” [0078]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have a level or permission as taught by Ahn et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Ahn et al. who teaches the benefits of security and having different levels for verification (permission).
Regarding claim 23
The system of claim 22, wherein an adjustment of the interface component is performed through user initiatively or performed automatically based on user operation data.
Yang et al teaches:
Adjustment based on finger detected for a predetermined time (user initiatively) …
“When the fingerprint of the right hand index finger is detected for a predetermined time or longer, the apparatus 100 may perform the TGC adjustment function. For example, as shown in FIG. 7B, when an ultrasound image is displayed on the touch screen, the user may draw a TGC curve 730 by touching and dragging on the ultrasound image based on a point 725 where the fingerprint has been detected. Based on the TGC curve 730, the apparatus 100 may set a TGC value according to a depth of the ultrasound image.” [0110]
Regarding claim 24
The system of claim 22, further comprising a collection device configured to obtain second fingerprint information of a user, and the at least one processor is further configured to perform at least one of the following operations:
executing a corresponding function or a corresponding operation based on the second fingerprint information;
Yang et al teaches:
Example of fingerprint and function…
“In an embodiment, when a first fingerprint of the user is detected, the controller performs a first function corresponding to the first fingerprint from among the functions, and when a second fingerprint of the user is detected, the controller performs a second function corresponding to the second fingerprint from among the functions.” [0014]
determining the user level or the user permission based on the second fingerprint information; and
See Permission below.
executing a corresponding function or a corresponding operation based on the user level or the user permission.
See Permission below.
Permission
The combined references teach fingerprint. They do not teach level or permission.
Ahn et al. also in the business of fingerprint teaches:
Determining security level based on matching points of fingerprint, where function to be executed requires (corresponds to) fingerprint verification (permission)…
“When the function to be executed requires fingerprint verification, the electronic device 100 acquires the security level for the function to be executed by the user, in operation 204. The security level and the minimum number of matching points corresponding thereto may vary depending upon the function. For example, a security level for an unlock function may be a third level, and a security level for a payment function may be a first level. The minimum number of matching points at the third level may be different from that at the first level. For example, the minimum number of matching points may be set to sixteen in the third level and to thirty two in the first level. The above example does not restrict various embodiments of the present invention.” [0078]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have a level or permission as taught by Ahn et al. since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Ahn et al. who teaches the benefits of security and having different levels for verification (permission).
Claim 45 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combined references in section (14) above in further view of Pub. No. US 2019/0065763 to Berg.
Regarding claim 45
The system of claim 15, further comprising:
automatically adjust the initial layout of the interface component based on a role of the user or a scanned region; and/or
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative claim language of “or a scanned region” as it is not required.]
{
From Applicant’s specification on scanned region…
“The preset rule determined based on operation data refers to a rule that an adjustment is made based on user operation data, such as a role of the user, historical data of an operation, etc. In some embodiments, the apps may be automatically adjusted based on the role of the user, a scanned region, etc.” [0181]
“In some embodiments, the configuration module 111021 may automatically adjust the apps based on the scanned region. For example, if the scanned region is the abdominal organs, doctors typically use a convex array probe for abdominal organ scanning. The configuration module 111021 may prompt the user to select the convex array probe for scanning by configuring a small flashing icon on an application for the convex array probe.” [0185]
Therefore, when scanning a regions, configure a flashing icon.
}
Yang et al teaches:
Display guide information (therefore, adjust initial layout) based on fingerprint detected (automatically, from user operation data)…
“The display 260 according to the exemplary embodiment may display guide information related to a function corresponding to a fingerprint detected by the input device 290. Also, when the display 260 is configured as a touch screen, the guide information related to the function may be displayed at a point where the fingerprint is detected.” [0074]
See Role below.
the system policy refers to a rule that an automatic adjustment of the interface component is made by the system based on a product operation strategy.
[No Patentable Weight is given to alternative claim language of “the system policy refers…” as it is not required.]
Role
The combined references teach interface. They do not teach role
Berg also in the business of interface teaches:
User types (role) and different interfaces…
“For example a Patient might require a different user interface than a Cardiologist. User types are not new to software applications but it is definitely advancement to existing PACS technology. In existing technology, differing types of interface needs are handled by the client application installation. Switching user interfaces often means manually installing another application on the user's computer. By using the browser, in the image access system, to download the viewer 40 and data 42, the interface can be customized each time it is downloaded.” [0099]
“FIG. 7 Further elaborates on FIG.6 to show the customized display to the user type from the image access system 10. It illustrates visible modules of the application that are rendered on the server, and sent to the users interface, after login 144. The image access system 10 is able to render the interface to the service customized to the users' profile type, login, or permissions.” [0100]
“The customized user interface is presented to the user. In this case a Radiologist (User B) 148 and a Cardiologist (User A) 146. User A and User B require different measurement tools and features 150 & 152.” [0101]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to include in the method and system of the combined references the ability to have an interface based on a role as taught by Berg since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Further motivation is provided by Berg who teaches the benefits of different interfaces based on roles and this would help provide appropriate information to a user.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The following prior art teaches at least fingerprint and offline and online ultrasonic device.
CN-101527666-A
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 KENNETH BARTLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-5230. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 - 4:00 EST.
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, SHAHID MERCHANT can be reached at (571) 270-1360. 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.
/KENNETH BARTLEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3684