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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/26/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
The scope of claim 11 is unclear. The claim recites “specify a region of the breast corresponding to the identified position in the bottom part of the compression member as the first region of interest”. However, claim 5 sets forth the first region of interest as a position of the second region of interest in the radiation image. It is unclear whether the first region of interest is specified from the radiation image or the compression member.
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.
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(s) 1-2 and 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2004/0181152) in view of Fatemi et al. (US 2019/0175140).
With respect to claims 1-2, 9, and 10, Zhang et al. discloses a control apparatus comprising at least one processor ([0045]; [0067]), wherein the processor is configured to: specify a first region of interest of a breast put into a compressed state between an imaging table and a compression member (imaging orientations; [0024]; [0057-0058]); perform control of rotating at least the compression member while the breast is put into the compressed state so that the first region of interest approaches the compression member ([0058]; [0060]; [0070-0071]); and perform control of capturing an ultrasound image of the first region of interest via the rotated compression member ([0061]). Zhang et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for determine whether or not the first region of interest is in contact with the compression member based on the ultrasound image. However, Fatemi et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor determining based on the ultrasound image contact with the compression member (strain at the target object; [0134-0135]) in order to determine reliability of data acquisition process ([0135]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Zhang et al. with determining contact with the compression member as taught by Fatemi et al. in order to determine reliability of the data acquisition process ([0135]). With respect to steps of determining and controlling rotation, the Examiner notes Zhang et al. discloses controlling rotation for imaging in several orientations ([0058]). In view of Fatemi et al., the Examiner’s position is that it is within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the reliability of data acquisition before rotating the compression member to another orientation for further imaging.
With respect to claim 8, Zhang et al. discloses perform control of rotating the compression member around an axis extending from a chest wall side of the breast to a nipple side (K; Fig. 9).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2004/0181152) in view of Fatemi et al. as applied to claim 1, further in view of Nields (US 5,776,062).
Zhang et al. in view of Fatemi et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for acquiring a radiation image, specify a region in the radiation image as the region of interest, and displaying the radiation image. However, Nields teaches in the same field of endeavor correlating radiation imaging with targeted ultrasound imaging (col. 2, lines 52-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Zhang et al. with the targeted ultrasound imaging as taught by Nields as it is well known to use radiation imaging to direct ultrasound imaging (col. 2, lines 52-67).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang et al. (US 2004/0181152) in view of Fatemi et al. and Nields (US 5,776,062) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim (US 2021/0315533).
Zhang et al. in view of Fatemi et al. and Nields discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for extracting the region of interest from the image. Kim teaches in the same field of endeavor wherein the control unit extracts the region of interest from the image ([0035]; [0072]; [0076]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Zhang et al. with image extract as taught by Kim as identifying and extracting a region of interest within the image is well known.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art of record fails to disclose or render obvious the claimed combination of subject matter except for determining that the first region of interest is not in contact with the compression member in a case in which a portion in which a signal value is changed discontinuously exists in the ultrasound image.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-2 and 5-10 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.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 11 have been considered but they are not persuasive. Although applicant’s remarks attempt to clarify the scope of the claims, the claims as recited fails to set forth the method steps to be performed in any form of sequential order. Therefore, performing steps which redefine the first region of interest and/or the second region of interest render the scope of the claim unclear.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights