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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted was filed on 01/16/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/17/2026 has been entered. Claims 10 and 14 have been canceled and new claims 23-24 have been added. Accordingly, claims 1-9, 11-13, and 15-24 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the claims, drawings, and specification have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 11/17/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 8, 11-13, 15, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US20220104878) in view of Van (US20170120072) and Pivac (US20200206924).
Regarding claim 1, Weiss teaches a system (100) to move an ultrasound transducer system (112) (Fig. 1, Abstract, [0139], [0144], [0173], [0267]), comprising:
a robotic arm (132) having an end effector (112) ([0151], “The imaging device 112 may be disposed on an end of the first robotic arm and/or the second robotic arm”);
a robotic control system configured to control movement of the end effector (112) ([0155], “For example, the robotic arm 132 (controlled by a processor of the robot 130, the processor 104 of the computing device 102, or some other processor, with or without any manual input) may be used to position the imaging device 112 at a plurality of predetermined, known poses, so that the imaging device 112 can obtain one or more images at each of the predetermined, known poses”); and
an input system (110) configured to receive input from a user and send a signal to the robotic control system to move the end effector (112) relative to the subject to acquire image data at a selected pose relative to the subject ([0144], “The user interface 110 may be used…to receive a user selection or other user input regarding causing the first robotic arm to position a transducer at the first pose…to receive a user selection or other user input regarding causing imaging device 112 to obtain an image at each of the one or more poses”, [0146]).
However, Weiss fails to explicitly teach a base configured to be positioned at a position relative to a subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches the base and/or extension arm is configured to manipulate and move/rotate probes such as the ultrasound imaging device (7) ([0030], [0086]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on a floor or on top of a table (2) ([0030]). Van further teaches wherein the base (3) may be adjustable so that the relative position between a patient (1) and base (3) may be set by a user ([0030]). Van therefore teaches a base configured to be positioned at a position relative to a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to further include a base configured to be positioned near a patient as taught by Van ([0030]). The base being configured to be positioned near a patient predictably allows for arms of the base to be within operating range of the patient for manipulating surgical instruments and/or imaging devices for a procedure.
However, the modified combination noted above fails to teach the position of the base relative to the subject being used as a reference for movement of the end effector.
In an analogous robotic system field of endeavor, Pivac teaches such a feature. Pivac teaches robotic arm kinematics for end effector control (Title, Abstract, [0005]). Pivac teaches a robotic system (100) including a robotic assembly (110) having a base (111), robotic arm (112), and an end effector (113) (Fig. 1A, [0098]). Pivac teaches the robot assembly (110), and thus also the robotic base (111), is configured to be positioned relative to an environment (E) (Fig. 1A, [0098]). Pivac further teaches a robotic control system (130; 230) which controls the robotic arm to commence movement of the end effector along an end effector path (Abstract, [0033], [0103-0105], [0124-0125]). Pivac teaches the position of the base is used as a reference for movement of the end effector (Abstract, [0005], [0045], [0197-0198], [0212], [0252]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the position of the base relative to an environment or subject be used as a reference position for movement of the end effector as taught by Pivac (Abstract, [0005], [0045], [0197-0198], [0212], [0252]). By using the base of the robot as a reference, movement of the base relative to a subject/environment may predictably be accounted for when determining movement of the end effector as recognized by Pivac ([0001], [0212], [0252])
Regarding claim 2, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Weiss fails to teach wherein the base is a floor mounted base.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on a floor (Fig. 1, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the base be a floor mounted base as taught by Van (Fig. 1, [0030]). A floor-mounted base may provide greater mechanical stability than for example a table mounted base and from that may allow for heavier or more complex robotic arms capable of handling heavier instruments or imaging devices.
Regarding claim 3, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 2.
However, Weiss fails to teach wherein the base is selectively fixed relative to the subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on a floor ([0030]). Van further teaches wherein the base (3) may be adjustable so that the relative position between a patient (1) and base (3) may be set by a user ([0030]). Van therefore teaches wherein the base may be selectively fixed (adjustable) relative to a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the position of the base be adjustable relative a patient as taught by Van ([0030]). The base being adjustably positioned relative to a patient improves the device’s flexibility, e.g. the arm’s reach, and procedural versatility.
Regarding claim 4, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Weiss fails to teach wherein the base is a patient support mounted base.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches a patient (1) is supported by a table (2), i.e. a patient support (Fig. 1, [0030]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on top of the table (2) ([0030]). Van therefore teaches wherein the base may be a patient support (table 2) mounted base.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the base be mounted on the patient support table as taught by Van (Fig. 1, [0030]). The base being table mounted may improve portability and may also save valuable floor space for other equipment and/or a surgical team.
Regarding claim 5, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
Weiss teaches the invention further comprising: an instrument control robotic system configured to position an instrument relative to the subject separate from the robotic arm ([0080], [0151], “In some embodiments, the robotic arm 132 may comprise a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm…The first robotic arm may hold or otherwise support an imaging device 112 and the second robotic arm may hold or otherwise support another imaging device 112 or a surgical tool, and each robotic arm may be positionable independently of the other robotic arm”, [0155], “For example, the robotic arm 132 (controlled by a processor of the robot 130, the processor 104 of the computing device 102, or some other processor, with or without any manual input) may be used to position…”).
Regarding claim 8, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
Weiss further teaches wherein the robotic control system is configured to execute instructions to move the ultrasound transducer system (112) to acquire image data to generate a three-dimensional image of the subject ([0146], “The imaging device 112 may be capable of taking a 2D image or a 3D image to yield the image data”, [0269], “For example, the first path and the second path may each be determined based on obtaining a three-dimensional image of a particular organ”, [0270], “In some embodiments, including when a three-dimensional image is desired, the first robotic arm moves on the first path synchronously to the second robotic arm moving on the second path”, Claims 11 & 14, “The device of claim 11, wherein the at least one image is a three-dimensional model”).
Regarding claim 11, Weiss teaches a method (800) of moving an ultrasound transducer system (112) (Fig. 8, Abstract, [0173], [0267], [0270]), the method (800) comprising:
providing a robotic arm (132) having an end effector (112) that is a configured to be selectively positioned relative to at least a base ([0151], “The imaging device 112 may be disposed on an end of the first robotic arm and/or the second robotic arm”, and wherein the robotic arms configured to position the imaging device 112 comprises an end effector that is configured to be selectively positioned relative to a base);
controlling movement of the end effector (112) with a robotic control system ([0155], “For example, the robotic arm 132 (controlled by a processor of the robot 130, the processor 104 of the computing device 102, or some other processor, with or without any manual input) may be used to position the imaging device 112 at a plurality of predetermined, known poses, so that the imaging device 112 can obtain one or more images at each of the predetermined, known poses”); and
receiving input from a user to the robotic control system to move the end effector (112) relative to the subject to acquire image data at a selected pose relative to the subject ([0144], “The user interface 110 may be used…to receive a user selection or other user input regarding causing the first robotic arm to position a transducer at the first pose…to receive a user selection or other user input regarding causing imaging device 112 to obtain an image at each of the one or more poses”, [0146]).
However, Weiss fails to explicitly teach providing a base configured to be positioned at a position relative to a subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches the base and/or extension arm is configured to manipulate and move/rotate probes such as the ultrasound imaging device (7) ([0030], [0086]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on a floor or on top of a table (2) ([0030]). Van further teaches wherein the base (3) may be adjustable so that the relative position between a patient (1) and base (3) may be set by a user ([0030]). Van therefore teaches a base configured to be positioned at a position relative to a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to further include a base configured to be positioned near a patient as taught by Van ([0030]). The base being configured to be positioned near a patient predictably allows for arms of the base to be within operating range of the patient for manipulating surgical instruments and/or imaging devices for a procedure.
However, the modified combination noted above fails to teach the position of the base relative to the subject being used as a reference for movement of the end effector.
In an analogous robotic system field of endeavor, Pivac teaches such a feature. Pivac teaches robotic arm kinematics for end effector control (Title, Abstract, [0005]). Pivac teaches a robotic system (100) including a robotic assembly (110) having a base (111), robotic arm (112), and an end effector (113) (Fig. 1A, [0098]). Pivac teaches the robot assembly (110), and thus also the robotic base (111), is configured to be positioned relative to an environment (E) (Fig. 1A, [0098]). Pivac further teaches a robotic control system (130; 230) which controls the robotic arm to commence movement of the end effector along an end effector path (Abstract, [0033], [0103-0105], [0124-0125]). Pivac teaches the position of the base is used as a reference for movement of the end effector (Abstract, [0005], [0045], [0197-0198], [0212], [0252]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the position of the base relative to an environment or subject be used as a reference position for movement of the end effector as taught by Pivac (Abstract, [0005], [0045], [0197-0198], [0212], [0252]). By using the base of the robot as a reference, movement of the base relative to a subject/environment may predictably be accounted for when determining movement of the end effector as recognized by Pivac ([0001], [0212], [0252])
Regarding claim 12, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 11.
However, Weiss fails to teach wherein providing the base includes configuring the provided base to be a floor mounted base.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on a floor (Fig. 1, [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the base be a floor mounted base as taught by Van (Fig. 1, [0030]). A floor-mounted base may provide greater mechanical stability than for example a table mounted base and from that may allow for heavier or more complex robotic arms capable of handling heavier instruments or imaging devices.
Regarding claim 13, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 12.
However, Weiss fails to teach selectively fixing the base relative to the subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Van teaches such a feature. Van teaches an ultrasound imaging device (7) mounted to a base (3) through an extension arm (6) (Fig. 1, [0030-0031]). Van teaches the base (3) may be mounted on a floor ([0030]). Van further teaches wherein the base (3) may be adjustable so that the relative position between a patient (1) and base (3) may be set by a user ([0030]). Van therefore teaches selectively fixing a base relative to a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to have the position of the base be adjustable relative a patient as taught by Van ([0030]). The base being adjustably positioned relative to a patient improves the device’s flexibility, e.g. the arm’s reach, and procedural versatility.
Regarding claim 15, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 11.
Weiss teaches the invention further comprising:
providing an instrument holding robotic arm (second robotic arm) separate from the provided robotic arm (first robotic arm) having the end effector (112) ([0080], [0151], “In some embodiments, the robotic arm 132 may comprise a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm…The first robotic arm may hold or otherwise support an imaging device 112 and the second robotic arm may hold or otherwise support another imaging device 112 or a surgical tool…”); and
configuring the instrument holding robotic arm to position an instrument separate from the end effector (112) ([0151], “…and each robotic arm may be positionable independently of the other robotic arm”, [0155], “For example, the robotic arm 132 (controlled by a processor of the robot 130, the processor 104 of the computing device 102, or some other processor, with or without any manual input) may be used to position…”).
Regarding claim 18, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 11.
Weiss teaches the invention further comprising:
configuring the robotic control system to execute instructions to move the ultrasound transducer system (112) to acquire image data to generate a three-dimensional image of the subject ([0146], “The imaging device 112 may be capable of taking a 2D image or a 3D image to yield the image data”, [0269], “For example, the first path and the second path may each be determined based on obtaining a three-dimensional image of a particular organ”, [0270], “In some embodiments, including when a three-dimensional image is desired, the first robotic arm moves on the first path synchronously to the second robotic arm moving on the second path”, Claims 1 & 4, “The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one image is a three-dimensional model”).
Regarding claim 20, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 11.
Weiss teaches the invention further comprising:
providing as the end effector (112) the ultrasound transducer system (112) configured to transmit and receive ultrasound waves to generate a sonogram image ([0125], “During initial registration, the system accurately brings the ultrasound probe to one or more positions and records sonographic images from these positions”, [0151], “In some embodiments, the robotic arm 132 may comprise a first robotic arm and a second robotic arm”, [0137], “In other applications of sonographic imaging, the transducer and the receiver may be positioned opposite each other to obtain Time of Flight (ToF) images”, [0173], “A time of flight may be determined by measuring the time that elapses between output of an ultrasonic signal from the emitter or transducer and receipt of the ultrasonic signal by the detector or receiver”).
Claims 6-7 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US20220104878) in view of Van (US20170120072) and Pivac (US20200206924) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above respectively, and further in view of Fontanarosa (US20190117999).
Regarding claim 6, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 1.
However, Weiss fails to teach wherein the robotic control system is configured to execute instructions to determine and/or adjust the position of the robotic arm to achieve a selected position of an ultrasound field of view of the subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound device field of endeavor, Fontanarosa teaches such a feature. Fontanarosa teaches a system (1) comprising an ultrasound probe (8) for generating ultrasound images of a patient (2) ([0049]). Fontanarosa teaches the system (1) further comprising a holding mechanism (9) comprising a holder (10) for holding the ultrasound probe (8) ([0050]). Moreover, Fontanarosa teaches a support structure comprising a robotic arm (31) is attached to the holder (10) for moving the ultrasound probe (8) relative to the patient (2) ([0050]). Fontanarosa further teaches a spatial parameters determining unit (17) adapted to determine spatial parameters to achieve an optimal view of a target and parts of an organ ([0057]). Fontanarosa teaches the determination is performed by selecting from several possible positions and orientations of a field of view ([0056-0057]). Fontanarosa teaches the spatial parameters determining unit (17) is configured to translate the field of view (60) via the robotic arm (31) to the position and orientation determined and selected by the spatial parameters determining unit (17) ([0058]). Fontanarosa therefore teaches a robotic control system configured to execute instructions to determine and/or adjust the position of a robotic arm to achieve a selected position of an ultrasound field of view of a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to further include a spatial parameters determining unit configured to determine and adjust the robotic arm to achieve a selected position and orientation of an ultrasound field of view as taught by Fontanarosa ([0050], [0056-0058]). By determining and adjusting the robotic arm to achieve a selected position of a field of view, an optimal field of view may be achieved in which a target and other mandatory parts of an organ at risk may be covered without any ultrasound blocking structures as recognized by Fontanarosa ([0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Weiss in view of Van, Pivac, and Fontanarosa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 6.
However, Weiss fails to teach wherein the robotic control system is configured to execute instructions to segment current image data and determine an optimal position of the ultrasound field of view during a procedure.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound device field of endeavor, Fontanarosa teaches such a feature. Fontanarosa teaches segmenting a target and organ at risk in an ultrasound image to determine their respective positions, orientations, and dimensions within the ultrasound image ([0022]). Fontanarosa teaches determining spatial parameters defining a position and orientation of an ultrasound probe (8) based on the determined positions, orientations, and dimensions of the target and organ at risk ([0052]). Moreover, Fontanarosa teaches aligning a field of view with a centroid of the target and further teaches determining an optimal field of view such that the target and mandatory parts of an organ at risk are covered and are not blocked by an ultrasound blocking structure by determining spatial parameters ([0055-0056]). Fontanarosa teaches determining spatial parameters by determining and selecting from several possible positions and orientations of the field of view ([0055], “Preferentially, these steps are carried out several times, in order determine several possible positions and orientations of the field of view…”, [0056], “This determination of the spatial parameters such that an ultrasound blocking structure is not in between a) the ultrasound probe and b) the target and the mandatory parts of the organs at risk is preferentially performed by selecting from the several possible positions and orientations of the field of view”). Fontanarosa teaches translating the field of view (60) and thus ultrasound probe (8) until the target and the mandatory parts of the organs at risk are completely covered by the field of view ([0055], [0058]). Fontanarosa therefore teaches segmenting a current image data and determining an optimal position of the ultrasound field of view during a procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to segment the ultrasound image and determine an optimal position of the ultrasound field of view during a procedure as taught by Fontanarosa ([0022], [0055-0056], [0058]). Segmenting the image may help determine a position, orientation, and dimensions of a target which may then help determine an optimal position of a field of view as recognized by Fontanarosa ([0022], [0052], [0056-0057]). Moreover, by determining an optimal position of a field of view, a robotic arm may be instructed to translate the field of view and thus ultrasound probe to the optimal position, which may cover the target and mandatory organs at risk as recognized by Fontanarosa ([0050], [0055], [0058]).
Regarding claim 16, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 11.
However, Weiss fails to teach the invention further comprising: configuring the robotic control system to execute instructions to determine and/or adjust the position of the robotic arm to achieve a selected position of an ultrasound field of view of the subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound device field of endeavor, Fontanarosa teaches such a feature. Fontanarosa teaches a system (1) comprising an ultrasound probe (8) for generating ultrasound images of a patient (2) ([0049]). Fontanarosa teaches the system (1) further comprising a holding mechanism (9) comprising a holder (10) for holding the ultrasound probe (8) ([0050]). Moreover, Fontanarosa teaches a support structure comprising a robotic arm (31) is attached to the holder (10) for moving the ultrasound probe (8) relative to the patient (2) ([0050]). Fontanarosa further teaches a spatial parameters determining unit (17) adapted to determine spatial parameters to achieve an optimal view of a target and parts of an organ ([0057]). Fontanarosa teaches the determination is performed by selecting from several possible positions and orientations of a field of view ([0056-0057]). Fontanarosa teaches the spatial parameters determining unit (17) is configured to translate the field of view (60) via the robotic arm (31) to the position and orientation determined and selected by the spatial parameters determining unit (17) ([0058]). Fontanarosa therefore teaches configuring a robotic control system to execute instructions to determine and/or adjust the position of a robotic arm to achieve a selected position of an ultrasound field of view of a subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to further include a spatial parameters determining unit configured to determine and adjust the robotic arm to achieve a selected position and orientation of an ultrasound field of view as taught by Fontanarosa ([0050], [0056-0058]). By determining and adjusting the robotic arm to achieve a selected position of a field of view, an optimal field of view may be achieved in which a target and other mandatory parts of an organ at risk may be covered without any ultrasound blocking structures as recognized by Fontanarosa ([0056-0057]).
Regarding claim 17, Weiss in view of Van, Pivac, and Fontanarosa teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 16.
However, Weiss fails to teach the invention further comprising: configuring the robotic system to execute instructions to segment current image data and determine an optimal position of the ultrasound field of view during a procedure.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound device field of endeavor, Fontanarosa teaches such a feature. Fontanarosa teaches segmenting a target and organ at risk in an ultrasound image to determine their respective positions, orientations, and dimensions within the ultrasound image ([0022]). Fontanarosa teaches determining spatial parameters defining a position and orientation of an ultrasound probe (8) based on the determined positions, orientations, and dimensions of the target and organ at risk ([0052]). Moreover, Fontanarosa teaches aligning a field of view with a centroid of the target and further teaches determining an optimal field of view such that the target and mandatory parts of an organ at risk are covered and are not blocked by an ultrasound blocking structure by determining spatial parameters ([0055-0056]). Fontanarosa teaches determining spatial parameters by determining and selecting from several possible positions and orientations of the field of view ([0055], “Preferentially, these steps are carried out several times, in order determine several possible positions and orientations of the field of view…”, [0056], “This determination of the spatial parameters such that an ultrasound blocking structure is not in between a) the ultrasound probe and b) the target and the mandatory parts of the organs at risk is preferentially performed by selecting from the several possible positions and orientations of the field of view”). Fontanarosa teaches translating the field of view (60) and thus ultrasound probe (8) until the target and the mandatory parts of the organs at risk are completely covered by the field of view ([0055], [0058]). Fontanarosa therefore teaches segmenting a current image data and determining an optimal position of the ultrasound field of view during a procedure.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to segment the ultrasound image and determine an optimal position of the ultrasound field of view during a procedure as taught by Fontanarosa ([0022], [0055-0056], [0058]). Segmenting the image may help determine a position, orientation, and dimensions of a target which may then help determine an optimal position of a field of view as recognized by Fontanarosa ([0022], [0052], [0056-0057]). Moreover, by determining an optimal position of a field of view, a robotic arm may be instructed to translate the field of view and thus ultrasound probe to the optimal position, which may cover the target and mandatory organs at risk as recognized by Fontanarosa ([0050], [0055], [0058]).
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US20220104878) in view of Van (US20170120072) and Pivac (US20200206924) as applied to claims 8 and 18 above respectively, and further in view of Rouet (US20210298717).
Regarding claim 9, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 8.
However, Weiss fails to teach the invention further comprising: a segmentation system configured to execute instructions to segment the three-dimensional image for at least one of registration to the subject, identification of selected structures, or verification of a predetermined outcome.
In an analogous ultrasound transducer system field of endeavor, Rouet teaches such a feature. Rouet teaches a system comprising an array transducer probe (4) for transmitting and receiving ultrasound waves ([0084]). Rouet teaches acquiring a plurality of three-dimensional ultrasound images of a desired imaging region of a fetus ([0112-0113]). Rouet teaches segmenting the three-dimensional ultrasound images to identify key structures such as the skull, the torso, and the legs ([0017], [0121]). Moreover, Rouet teaches a processor adapted to perform the segmentation ([0065-0071]). Rouet therefore teaches a system configured to execute instructions to segment a three-dimensional image for at least identification of selected structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to include a segmentation system to segment three-dimensional ultrasound images for identifying selected structures as taught by Rouet ([0017], [0065], [0070], [0121]). By segmenting and identifying structures, it may become possible to perform accurate weight estimation of a fetus as recognized by Rouet ([0018], [0142]), thus improving functionality of the system.
Regarding claim 19, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 18.
However, Weiss fails to teach the invention further comprising: segmenting the three-dimensional image for at least one of registration to the subject, identification of selected structures, or verification of a predetermined outcome.
In an analogous ultrasound transducer system field of endeavor, Rouet teaches such a feature. Rouet teaches a system comprising an array transducer probe (4) for transmitting and receiving ultrasound waves ([0084]). Rouet teaches acquiring a plurality of three-dimensional ultrasound images of a desired imaging region of a fetus ([0112-0113]). Rouet teaches segmenting the three-dimensional ultrasound images to identify key structures such as the skull, the torso, and the legs ([0017], [0121]). Moreover, Rouet teaches a processor adapted to perform the segmentation ([0065-0071]). Rouet therefore teaches segmenting a three-dimensional image for at least identification of selected structures.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to include a segmentation system to segment three-dimensional ultrasound images for identifying selected structures as taught by Rouet ([0017], [0121]). By segmenting and identifying structures, it may become possible to perform accurate weight estimation of a fetus as recognized by Rouet ([0018], [0142]), thus improving functionality of the system.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US20220104878) in view of Van (US20170120072) and Pivac (US20200206924) as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Shahedi (US20240260945).
Regarding claim 21, Weiss in view of Van and Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 11.
However, Weiss fails to teach the invention further comprising: configuring the robotic control system to execute instructions to move the ultrasound transducer system to acquire image data to generate a four-dimensional image of the subject.
In an analogous system for moving an ultrasound transducer field of endeavor, Shahedi teaches such a feature. Shahedi teaches a method and 4D ultrasound imaging system comprising an ultrasound transducer for generating 4D ultrasound images of the lung ([0016], [0018]). Shahedi teaches moving the ultrasound probe (202) across the patient’s (208) chest to obtain a set of 2D image slices (204) of the lung (206) ([0053]). Shahedi teaches reconstructing a 3D volume based on a group of 2D slices (224) and repeating this process for each subset of 2D image slices to reconstruct a sequence of 3D volumes over the patient’s entire breathing cycle, thereby resulting in a 4D image of the patient’s lung ([0057-0058]). Shahedi teaches wherein robotic arms may be used to control the ultrasound probe motion, i.e. moving the ultrasound transducer across the patient’s chest to obtain the 2D image slices ([0111]). Shahedi therefore teaches configuring a robotic control system to execute instructions to move an ultrasound transducer system to acquire image data to generate a four-dimensional image of the subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Shahedi to configure the robotic arm system to acquire image data to generate a four-dimensional image of the subject as taught by Shahedi ([0053], [0057-0058], [0111]). A 3D lung video may be assembled and displayed for an entire breathing cycle by generating 4D images of the patient’s lungs as recognized by Shahedi ([0058-0060]). The 4D image may assist or guide a physician to reach a target in the lung during a procedure as further recognized by Shahedi ([0046], [0081]). Moreover, the robotic arms may provide for more precise movement of the transducer as also recognized by Shahedi ([0111]).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US20220104878) in view of Van (US20170120072), Pivac (US20200206924), and Shahedi (US20240260945) as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Allaire (US20220079551).
Regarding claim 22, Weiss in view of Van, Pivac, and Shahedi teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 21.
However, Weiss fails to teach the invention further comprising: segmenting the four-dimensional image for at least one of registration to the subject, identification of selected structures, verification of a predetermined outcome, or combinations thereof.
In an analogous ultrasound imaging field of endeavor, Allaire teaches such a feature. Allaire teaches wherein 4D ultrasound data of the heart may be obtained ([0093-0094]) and performing image stabilization on the images ([0097]). Allaire teaches segmenting a dynamic jet from the time sequence of stabilized 3D ultrasound images ([0094], [0104], wherein a time sequence of 3D images is a 4D image). Allaire teaches a dynamic surface model may be fit to a valve based on the segmented jet ([0106]). Allaire teaches regurgitant orifices may be identified based on the dynamic surface model and thus based on the segmenting the four-dimensional image (Abstract, [0059], [0108-0109]). Allaire therefore teaches segmenting a four-dimensional image of the heart for at least identification of selected structures (regurgitant orifices).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Weiss to acquire 4D images of the heart for segmentation and identification of regurgitant orifices as taught by Allaire (Abstract, [0059], [0104], [0106], [0108-0109]). Through segmentation of the 4D image and identification of regurgitant orifices, regurgitant flow may be estimated, allowing for improved reliability and accuracy for valve regurgitation assessment as recognized by Allaire ([0005], [0089], [0112-0113]).
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumanaweera (US20080021317) in view of Pivac (US20200206924).
Regarding claim 23, Sumanaweera teaches a system (12) for moving an ultrasound transducer system (14) (Figs. 1 & 6, Abstract, [0005], [0023], [0031], [0054]), comprising:
a robotic arm (12) having an end effector (14) (Figs. 1 & 6, [0021-0023], [0073], “The robotic end-effector (e.g., transducer 14)”);
a base configured to be positioned at a position relative to a subject (Figs. 1 & 6, [0033], “a base of the robotic mechanism 12”, wherein figures 1 and/or 6 shows the base is configured to be positioned at a position relative to a patient/subject); and
a robotic control system (20, 22, 24) configured to control movement of the end effector (14) (Fig. 1, [0022-0023], [0028], [0031], [0050], [0054]);
wherein the robotic control system (20, 22, 24) is further configured to use a pressure sensor (16) associated with the robotic arm (12) or the end effector (14) to measure pressure applied by the ultrasound transducer system (14) to the subject and to adjust the end effector based on the measured pressure (Figs. 1 & 6, Claim 14, [0009], [0034-0035], [0061], [0071], “The processor 24 determines the pressure applied to the body as a function of output from the force sensor 16. Actuators 20 are controlled in response to both force sensors 16, 62”).
However, Sumanaweera fails to teach the position of the base relative to the subject being used as a reference for movement of the end effector.
In an analogous robotic system field of endeavor, Pivac teaches such a feature. Pivac teaches robotic arm kinematics for end effector control (Title, Abstract, [0005]). Pivac teaches a robotic system (100) including a robotic assembly (110) having a base (111), robotic arm (112), and an end effector (113) (Fig. 1A, [0098]). Pivac teaches the robot assembly (110), and thus also the robotic base (111), is configured to be positioned relative to an environment (E) (Fig. 1A, [0098]). Pivac further teaches a robotic control system (130; 230) which controls the robotic arm to commence movement of the end effector along an end effector path (Abstract, [0033], [0103-0105], [0124-0125]). Pivac teaches the position of the base is used as a reference for movement of the end effector (Abstract, [0005], [0045], [0197-0198], [0212], [0252]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Sumanaweera to have the base be adjustable and the position of the base relative to an environment or subject be used as a reference position for movement of the end effector as taught by Pivac (Abstract, [0005], [0045], [0197-0198], [0212], [0252]). By using the base of the robot as a reference, movement of the base relative to a subject/environment may predictably be accounted for when determining movement of the end effector as recognized by Pivac ([0001], [0212], [0252]). Moreover, by having the base be adjustable, i.e. movable, with respect to the environment or patient, more efficient or flexible maneuvering or movement of the end effector may predictably be allowed.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sumanaweera (US20080021317) in view of Pivac (US20200206924) as applied to claim 23 above, and further in view of Stoianovici (US20210378644).
Regarding claim 24, Sumanaweera in view of Pivac teaches the invention as claimed above in claim 23.
Sumanaweera further teaches wherein the robotic control system (20, 22, 24) is configured to adjust the position or force of the end effector (14) to optimize image data acquisition (Figs. 1 & 6, [0034], [0061], “With the force feedback, the articulated robotic mechanism 12 can apply a desired pressure for optimal image-quality”).
However, Sumanaweera fails to teach wherein the robotic system is configured to adjust the position or force of the end effector to minimize deformation of tissue or movement of internal organs within the subject.
In an analogous robotic system field of endeavor, Stoianovici teaches such a feature. Stoianovici teaches a robot-assisted approach for ultrasound guided prostate biopsy (Abstract, [0009], [0034]). Stoianovici teaches a robotic manipulator arm configured to hold an ultrasound probe (10) (Fig. 1, [0036]). Stoianovici further teaches a robot controller (108) Fig. 2, [0039]). Stoianovici teaches using the robot to apply minimal pressure over a prostate gland to avoid prostate deformations ([0013], [0036], [0100]). Stoianovici teaches retracting then slightly advancing the ultrasound probe, thereby adjusting the position or force of the probe (end effector), to minimize prostate deformation ([0045]). Stoianovici therefore teaches adjusting a position and force of an end effector (probe) to minimize deformation of tissue (prostate) or movement of internal organs (prostate) within the subject.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Sumanaweera to adjust the position and/or force of the ultrasound probe to minimize tissue deformation as taught by Stoianovici ([0013], [0036], [0045], [0100]). Tissue deformation may cause rendering and registration errors as recognized by Stoianovici ([0005-0006]), therefore minimizing tissue deformation may improve rendering and registration accuracy.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOMMY T LY whose telephone number is (571) 272-6404. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00pm-8:00pm eastern time.
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 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.
/TOMMY T LY/ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights