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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14, 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 the limitation "a subject" in line 4, and further recites “a subject” in line 11. Hence, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “a subject” in line 11 is same as “a subject” claimed in line 4, or different, rendering claim 1 and its dependent claims 2-12 indefinite.
Claim 11, recites the limitation "a subject" in line 2, however its respective independent claim 1, in which claim 11 depends on also recites “a subject” in line 4 and in line 11. Hence, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “a subject” in claim 11 is same as “a subject” claimed in claim 1, or different, rendering claim 11 indefinite.
Claim 13, recites the limitation "a subject" in line 3, and further recites “a subject” in line 8. Hence, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “a subject” in line 8, is same as “a subject” claimed in line 3, or different, rendering claim 13 indefinite.
Claim 14, recites the limitation "a subject" in line 4, and further recites “a subject” in line 9. Hence, from the claim language it is not clear whether the claimed “a subject” in line 9, is same as “a subject” claimed in line 3, or different, rendering claim 14 indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-9, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki (JP 2005349003A, English Translation of the JP is attached herewith).
As per claim 1, Suzuki discloses an image display device (Suzuki, Fig. 1:20) comprising:
at least one processor or circuit (Suzuki, Fig. 1:22) configured to function as:
acquisition unit configured to acquire a first image (Suzuki, paragraph 43, discloses the ultrasonic image 30), a second image (Suzuki, paragraph 50, discloses the second ultrasonic image obtained after a certain period of time), and first position information regarding a first position at which a subject in the first image is measured (Suzuki, paragraph 44, discloses the position and other measure of the marker);
display unit (Suzuki, paragraphs 40 and 43, discloses monitor 20) configured to display the second image on a display device (Suzuki, Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, shows second image being displayed on display); and
determination unit configured to determining a second position corresponding to the first position in the second image based on distance information corresponding to the first and second images (Suzuki, paragraphs 54-56, discloses the image display device that adjust position such that the shape of the marker 36 and a diagnostic site 34 match),
wherein the display unit displays and superimposes first measurement information obtained by measuring a subject at the first position on the first image at the second position on the second image (Suzuki, paragraph 55, and also please see Fig. 2 and Fig. 2C which shows superimposes first measurement information obtained by measuring a subject at the first position on the first image at the second position on the second image).
As per claim 2, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one processor or circuit is further configured to function as, a designation unit for receiving a designation of the first measurement position by a user (Suzuki, paragraph 44, discloses an operator changes the shape and size of the marker).
As per claim 3, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the first measurement information is information regarding a length of a line connecting two points including the first position on the first image or information regarding an area of a region including the first position on the first image (Suzuki, paragraphs 46 and 47, discloses recording the shape, size, position, width, and height of marker, area values).
As per claim 4, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1 wherein the first measurement information is obtained by measuring a length or an area of the subject based on the first image and first distance information in a depth direction corresponding to the first image (Suzuki, paragraphs 46-48, and 66-68, the depth being the reach distance of the ultrasonic device).
As per claim 5, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 3, wherein the first measurement information displayed by the display unit includes a frame indicating a region including the first position or a line connecting two points including the first position (Suzuki, please see Fig. 2 and Fig. 4).
As per claim 6, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the display unit adjusts the first measurement information so that lengths or sizes of predetermined subjects in the first and second images are equal (Suzuki, paragraphs 60 and 62), and superimposes the first measurement information on the second image (Suzuki, Fig. 4C, shows overlaying of the first measurement information on the second image).
As per claim 7, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the display unit performs display by expanding or contracting at least one of the first and second images so that sizes of corresponding subjects in the first and second images are equal (Suzuki, Fig. 4C, shows the sizes of subjects in first and second images are equal).
As per claim 8, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the display unit further superimposes and displays second measurement information obtained by measuring the subject in the second image (Suzuki, Fig. 4a-4c, and paragraphs 57 and 62, discloses subject measurement in second image).
As per claim 9, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 8, wherein the designation unit receives a designation of a position at which the subject in the second image is measured within a predetermined range that is based on the first position (Suzuki, and paragraphs 57-62, discloses subject in second image is measured within a predetermined range based on first position).
As per claim 13, please see the analysis of claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 10, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2005349003A, English Translation of the JP is attached herewith) and further in view of Sano (US PGPUB 2007/0236782 A1).
As per claim 10, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the Suzuki does not explicitly disclose display unit superimposes and displays a scale comparable with the first measurement information along with the first measurement information.
Sano discloses display unit superimposes and displays a scale comparable with the first measurement information along with the first measurement information (Sano, Figs. 5-6, and paragraph 74, discloses On the three dimensional image shown in FIG. 5, a scale S3 is superimposed. As in the case of the scales S1 and S2 for the two-dimensional image, the operator is able to move and rotate the position of the scale S3. The number of scales to be displayed can also be changed by operating the scale setting unit 230F..).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Suzuki teachings by displaying images, as taught by Sano.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system which is capable of superimposing scale information for measuring an object on an observation image in such a manner that a display condition of the scale information matches a display mode of the observation image (paragraph 7), as taught by Sano.
Claim(s) 11-12, and 14, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki (JP 2005349003A, English Translation of JP is attached herewith) and further in view of Yang (US PGPUB 2021/0068788 A1).
As per claim 11, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the Suzuki does not explicitly disclose first measurement information includes information regarding measurement accuracy when a subject is measured.
Yang discloses first measurement information includes information regarding measurement accuracy when a subject is measured (Yang, paragraph 37, discloses For example, to get a whole image for a relatively large tumor in a patient's abdomen and thus to more accurately measure a size of the tumor).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Suzuki teachings by implementing a measurement technique to the system, as taught by Yang.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system to combine two or more images (paragraph 14), as taught by Yang.
As per claim 12, Suzuki further discloses the image display device according to claim 1, wherein the Suzuki does not explicitly disclose display unit displays the first and second images side by side.
Yang discloses display unit displays the first and second images side by side (Yang, paragraphs 88 and 111, discloses displaying the first and second images side-by-side on the display screen).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Suzuki teachings by displaying images in specific order, as taught by Yang.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system to combine two or more images (paragraph 14), as taught by Yang.
As per claim 14, Suzuki discloses all the claim limitations as being explained in claim 1, Suzuki also discloses a processor for executing following processes (Suzuki, paragraph 11), However Suzuki does not explicitly disclose a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions.
Yang discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium configured to store a computer program comprising instructions (Yang, paragraph 102).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to modify Suzuki teachings by implementing a storage medium to the system, as taught by Yang.
The motivation would be to provide an improved system to combine two or more images (paragraph 14), as taught by Yang.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SYED Z HAIDER whose telephone number is (571)270-5169. The examiner can normally be reached MONDAY-FRIDAY 9-5:30 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, SAM K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/SYED HAIDER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights