DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on January 28, 2026 concerning application No. 18/665,414 filed on May 15, 2024.
Claims 1 and 3-20 are currently pending.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 regarding the claim objections have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the claim objections of claim 1 and 21 previously set forth. Examiner notes the claim amendments have led to further claim objections.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 regarding the 35 USC 112 rejections have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 9 and 11 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/28/2026 regarding the prior art rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “the third data comprises a unitary file having both the first data and the second data in a same format”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action [0044] of Stuebe discloses generating a report which includes the measurements in a predetermined format, where the measurements include the ECG recording (first data) and ultrasound image data (second data). Since the data is being output within the same report file the ECG recording and ultrasound images are considered to be in the same format presented by the report. By generating a report file that includes the ECG recording and ultrasound image data, third data is being generated that includes the underlying electrophysiological signal data and the underlying ultrasound data in a same-format that supports later computational reconstruction and rendering of waveforms and ultrasound images, which represents the limitation currently claimed by applicant. As set forth in the rejection below the first data is used for generating one or more electrophysiological waveforms with a synchronized time base as disclosed in [0038] and [0054] of Stuebe and the ultrasound image data is used for generating at least a B-mode image as disclosed in [0036]-[0037] of Stuebe. Further, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the recitation of para. 92 of the PGPUB US20240382176A1 on pgs. 9-10, specifically that the unitary file is “a unitary file with a binary format”, the recitation on pg. 10 “the third data is a unitary, time-coherent data container that stores the underlying…data” and “that the system generates and stores ‘third data’ as a single unitary file”, and the recitation on pg. 11 “the third data that is a unitary stored file, not merely a displayed combination; that unitary stored file contains both first and second data ‘in a same format’, meaning a common representational format for the stored data within the unitary file…stored first and second data enables the generation”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). As the claims are currently written they do not specify the type of file being used, nor does the claim specify the specific format the first data and second data are being generated in within the unitary file. The claims also do not recite that the third data is being stored. Therefore the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation recited above encompasses the report of Stuebe which is generated to include the first data and second data in a same format. For at least these reasons Stuebe teaches the argued limitation recited above.
Regarding applicant’s arguments on pgs. 11-12 that the secondary references do not teach the argued limitation recited above. Examiner does not rely on any of the secondary references to teach the argued limitation as discussed above.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 28, “a synchronized time base” should read “the synchronized time base”,
Claim 21, line 30, “a synchronized time base” should read “the synchronized time base”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 9-10, 12, and 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Stuebe et al. (US 20130345563, hereinafter Stuebe).
Regarding claim 1, Stuebe teaches a system adapted to concurrently acquire first data and second data of a patient ([0021] discloses a medical diagnostic system 100 which acquires ECG and imaging data), the system comprising:
an electrodiagnostic device configured to acquire the first data indicative of voluntary or stimulated electrophysiological signals from a nerve or muscle of the patient ([0021] discloses obtaining ECG data from an ECG device 106. Also see [0027]);
an ultrasound device configured to apply acoustic energy to the patient and acquire the second data, wherein the second data is indicative of reflected sound from the patient’s tissue in response to the application of said acoustic energy into the patient ([0021] discloses obtaining ultrasound images using the ultrasound imaging device 108. Also see [0027]);
a unitary handheld device in electrical communication with the electrodiagnostic device and the ultrasound device ([0024] discloses an integrated component such as a tablet (unitary handheld device) which is communicatively coupled to the probe and electrodes), wherein the unitary handheld device is adapted to concurrently apply electrical stimulation to a first anatomical location of the patient and said acoustic energy to a second anatomical location of the patient and wherein the unitary handheld device is further configured to acquire the first data and the second data ([0027] discloses using the electrodes 114 and the probe 118 during a diagnostic session to obtain patient information, the location where the electrodes are placed is considered the first anatomical location and the location where the probe is placed is considered the second anatomical location. [0022] discloses the computing system of the unitary handheld device is adapted for controlling the electrode and ultrasound imaging devices. [0026] further discloses by being communicatively coupled the devices are electrically coupled to one another. [0044] further discloses the computing system analyzes the measurements obtained by the electrodes and imaging device, meaning the unitary handheld device is configured to acquire the first data and the second data);
a circuit (the electronic circuitry of system 100 in fig. 1) comprising a clock adapted to generate a time ([0054] discloses associating an image frame with a designated time during the acquisition ultrasound image, wherein the designated time is considered the time generated by the circuit clock), wherein the circuit is further configured to receive and synchronize the first data and the second data using said time in order to generate third data ([0054] discloses the signal waveform 410 generated from the electrodes and the acquired ultrasound image are synchronized. [0055] further discloses the synchronized data is used for obtaining measurements which is used for generating a report [0074]);
a computing device ([0022] computing system 102) in data communication with at least one of a) the electrodiagnostic device and the ultrasound device ([0021], fig. 1 shows the computing device 102 is in data communication with the electrodiagnostic device 106 and the ultrasound device 108) and b) the unitary handheld device, wherein the computing device includes a processor and memory storing a plurality of programmatic instructions which when executed by the processor ([0022] “The computing system 102 is configured to execute a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements (e.g., instructions stored on a tangible and/or non-transitory computer readable storage medium) to control operation of the diagnostic system 100. The set of instructions may include various commands that instruct the computing system 102 as a processing machine to perform specific operations such as the workflows, processes, and methods described herein”), configures the processor to:
acquire the first data, the second data, and the third data ([0044] discloses the computing system obtains the measurements from the electrodiagnostic device and imaging device which as discussed above includes the first data, second data, and third data);
analyze the first data, the second data, and the third data ([0021] “The computing system 102 may also generate reports and/or provide at least some analysis of the imaging and electrical data obtained”. Also see [0042]-[0044]);
generate one or more electrophysiological waveforms with a synchronized time base from the first data ([0038] discloses generating waveform data from the ECG data. [0054] further discloses the generated waveform is synchronized in time);
generate at least one of a B-mode image, a M-mode image, a Q-mode image, and cine images from the second data ([0036]-[0037] disclose generating B-mode image data from the received ultrasound data (second data)); and
generate one or more graphical user interfaces in order to display the one or more electrophysiological waveforms with a synchronized time base, the at least one of a B-mode image, a M-mode image, a Q-mode image, and cine images, and the third data based on a selection of at least one of a plurality of clinical applications ([0046]-[0048] discloses generating a display that includes the waveform data, the B-mode image, and the report (third data) as shown in figs. 3-8. [0046]-[0047] and figs. 3-8 show the ultrasound application is selected), wherein the third data comprises a unitary file having both the first data and the second data in a same format ([0044] discloses generating a report (unitary file) which includes the first data and second data in a predetermined format, since the first data and second data are being output within the same report file they are in a same format (the format of the report)).
Regarding claim 4, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the plurality of clinical applications comprises a stimulated M-mode study, an electrodiagnostic triggered M-mode study, a stimulated B-mode study, an electrodiagnostic triggered B-mode study, an ultrasound stimulation study, a repetitive nerve stimulation study, a triggered electrodiagnostic study, video synchronization, and an automatic needle tip identification and 3D visualization of ultrasound and electrodiagnostic data ([0029] discloses the clinical applications includes at least a stimulated B-mode study).
Regarding claim 9, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the third data comprises data indicative of navigator support in at least one of said one or more graphical user interfaces ([0046] fig. 4 shows the third data includes navigator support (tabs) in a graphical user interface).
Regarding claim 10, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches when the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to cause a display of a toggle control adapted to toggle between a first protocol and a second protocol, wherein the first protocol and the second protocol are different ([0046], figs. 3-8 show the display includes a toggle control between an ultrasound protocol (second protocol) and a ECG protocol (first protocol)).
Regarding claim 12, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to generate a dock cine toolbar in the one or more graphical user interfaces (fig. 4 shows the graphical user interface includes a signal waveform (dock cine toolbar) which includes a time indicator 420 which corresponds to the image frame 418 corresponding to electrical measurement time. Also see time-selection element 422 in [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to cause a display two images side-by-side in the one or more graphical user interface, and wherein the two images are indicative of at least two of the first data, the second data and the third data (fig. 4 shows a display displaying two images side by side, the first image 418 corresponds to the second data and the signal waveform in waveform portion 408 is considered the first data).
Regarding claim 15, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches when the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to receive a manual selection of two or more images using the one or more graphical user interface, and wherein the two or more images are indicative of at least two of the first data, the second data and the third data ([0057] discloses the user selects the ultrasound image frame to be displayed which corresponds to the second data. [0038] discloses the operator selects the waveform data that is being presented on the display which corresponds to the first data).
Regarding claim 16, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches when the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to create report tokens to support image comparisons, wherein the image is indicative of at least one of the first data, second data or third data ([0046], figs. 3-8 show the display includes report tab (report token). [0100] discloses the report includes comparisons of measurements from images, where the measurement frame corresponds to the ultrasound image data (second data), see [0055]).
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.
Claim(s) 3, 7, 11, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Hazelwood et al. (US 20190142337, hereinafter Hazelwood).
Regarding claim 3, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the electrodiagnostic device is used to acquire data from a muscle other than the heart of a patient ([0025] discloses the anatomical structure can be other muscles of muscle systems). Stuebe does not specifically teach the electrodiagnostic device is configured to perform at least one of an electromyography study, a nerve conduction study, an evoked potential study, and a repetitive nerve stimulation study.
However,
Hazelwood in a similar field of endeavor teaches an electrodiagnostic device configured to perform at least one of an electromyography study, a nerve conduction study, an evoked potential study, and a repetitive nerve stimulation study ([0038]-[0039] discloses the electrodiagnostic device is used for electromyography).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the electrodiagnostic device be configured to perform an electromyography study of Hazelwood to the electrodiagnostic device of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of increasing the capabilities of the system, thereby making the system more effective.
Regarding claim 7, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the electrodiagnostic device is used to acquire data from a muscle other than the heart of a patient ([0025] discloses the anatomical structure can be other muscles of muscle systems). Stuebe does not specifically teach the electrodiagnostic device is an electromyography device.
However,
Hazelwood in a similar field of endeavor teaches the electrodiagnostic device is an electromyography device ([0038]-[0039] discloses the electrodiagnostic device is used for electromyography).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the electrodiagnostic device be an electromyography device of Hazelwood to the electrodiagnostic device of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of increasing the capabilities of the system, thereby making the system more effective.
Regarding claim 11, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 10, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the electrodiagnostic device is used to acquire data from a muscle other than the heart of a patient ([0025] discloses the anatomical structure can be other muscles of muscle systems) and the second protocol corresponds to an ultrasound protocol ([0046], figs. 3-8 show the display includes a toggle control between an ultrasound protocol (second protocol) and other protocols). Stuebe does not specifically teach the first protocol is an electromyography protocol.
However,
Hazelwood in a similar field of endeavor teaches a protocol for electromyography ([0038]-[0039] discloses performing an electromyography technique).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the first protocol be an electromyography protocol of Hazelwood to the system of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of increasing the capabilities of the system, thereby making the system more effective.
Regarding claim 21, Stuebe teaches a system adapted to concurrently acquire first data and second data of a patient ([0021] discloses a medical diagnostic system 100 which acquires ECG and imaging data), the system comprising:
an electrodiagnostic device configured to acquire the first data indicative of voluntary or stimulated electrophysiological signals from a nerve or muscle of the patient ([0021] discloses obtaining ECG data from an ECG device 106. Also see [0027]);
an ultrasound device configured to apply acoustic energy to the patient and acquire the second data, wherein the second data is indicative of reflected sound from the patient’s tissue in response to the application of said acoustic energy into the patient ([0021] discloses obtaining ultrasound images using the ultrasound imaging device 108. Also see [0027]);
a unitary handheld device in electrical communication with the electrodiagnostic device and the ultrasound device ([0024] discloses an integrated component such as a tablet (unitary handheld device) which is communicatively coupled to the probe and electrodes), wherein the unitary handheld device is adapted to concurrently apply electrical stimulation to a first anatomical location of the patient and said acoustic energy to a second anatomical location of the patient and wherein the unitary handheld device is further configured to acquire the first data and the second data ([0027] discloses using the electrodes 114 and the probe 118 during a diagnostic session to obtain patient information, the location where the electrodes are placed is considered the first anatomical location and the location where the probe is placed is considered the second anatomical location. [0022] discloses the computing system of the unitary handheld device is adapted for controlling the electrode and ultrasound imaging devices. [0026] further discloses by being communicatively coupled the devices are electrically coupled to one another. [0044] further discloses the computing system analyzes the measurements obtained by the electrodes and imaging device, meaning the unitary handheld device is configured to acquire the first data and the second data);
a circuit (the electronic circuitry of system 100 in fig. 1) comprising a clock adapted to generate a time ([0054] discloses associating an image frame with a designated time during the acquisition ultrasound image, wherein the designated time is considered the time generated by the circuit clock), wherein the circuit is further configured to receive and synchronize the first data and the second data using said time in order to generate third data ([0054] discloses the signal waveform 410 generated from the electrodes and the acquired ultrasound image are synchronized. [0055] further discloses the synchronized data is used for obtaining measurements which is used for generating a report [0074]), wherein the third data comprises a unitary file having both the first data and the second data in a same format ([0044] discloses generating a report (unitary file) which includes the first data and second data, since the first data and second data are being output within the same report file they are in a same format (the format of the report));
a computing device ([0022] computing system 102) in data communication with at least one of a) the electrodiagnostic device and the ultrasound device ([0021], fig. 1 shows the computing device 102 is in data communication with the electrodiagnostic device 106 and the ultrasound device 108) and b) the unitary handheld device, wherein the computing device includes a processor and memory storing a plurality of programmatic instructions which when executed by the processor ([0022] “The computing system 102 is configured to execute a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements (e.g., instructions stored on a tangible and/or non-transitory computer readable storage medium) to control operation of the diagnostic system 100. The set of instructions may include various commands that instruct the computing system 102 as a processing machine to perform specific operations such as the workflows, processes, and methods described herein”), configures the processor to:
acquire the first data, the second data, and the third data ([0044] discloses the computing system obtains the measurements from the electrodiagnostic device and imaging device which as discussed above includes the first data, second data, and third data);
analyze the first data, the second data, and the third data ([0021] “The computing system 102 may also generate reports and/or provide at least some analysis of the imaging and electrical data obtained”. Also see [0042]-[0044]);
generate one or more electrophysiological waveforms with a synchronized time base from the first data ([0038] discloses generating waveform data from the ECG data. [0054] further discloses the generated waveform is synchronized in time);
generate at least one of a B-mode image, a M-mode image, a Q-mode image, and cine images from the second data ([0036]-[0037] disclose generating B-mode image data from the received ultrasound data (second data)); and
generate one or more graphical user interfaces in order to display the one or more electrophysiological waveforms with a synchronized time base, the at least one of a B-mode image, a M-mode image, a Q-mode image, and cine images, and the third data ([0046]-[0048] discloses generating a display that includes the waveform data, the B-mode image, and the report (third data) as shown in figs. 3-8), wherein the third data comprises a unitary file having both the first data and the second data in a same format ([0044] discloses generating a report (unitary file) which includes the first data and second data in a predetermined format, since the first data and second data are being output within the same report file they are in a same format (the format of the report)), based on a selection of at least one of a stimulated M-mode study, an electrodiagnostic triggered M-mode study, a stimulated B-mode study, an electrodiagnostic triggered B-mode study, an ultrasound stimulation study, a repetitive nerve stimulation study, a triggered electrodiagnostic study, video synchronization, and an automatic needle tip identification and 3D visualization of ultrasound and electrodiagnostic data ([0046]-[0047] and figs. 3-8 show the ultrasound application (ultrasound stimulation study) is selected).
Stuebe does not specifically teach the electrodiagnostic device is configured to perform at least one of an electromyography study, a nerve conduction study, an evoked potential study, and a repetitive nerve stimulation study.
However,
Hazelwood in a similar field of endeavor teaches an electrodiagnostic device configured to perform at least one of an electromyography study, a nerve conduction study, an evoked potential study, and a repetitive nerve stimulation study ([0038]-[0039] discloses the electrodiagnostic device is used for electromyography).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the electrodiagnostic device be configured to perform an electromyography study of Hazelwood to the electrodiagnostic device of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of increasing the capabilities of the system, thereby making the system more effective.
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Dou et al. (CN104983419A, hereinafter Dou).
Regarding claim 5, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to:
automatically acquire at least a portion of the second data indicative of a current depth of a tip of a needle in the patient ([0033] discloses the probe 118 is used to for imaging a ROI which includes a needle within the body. By generating ultrasound images of the needle, the second data is indicative of a current depth of a dip of a needle in the patient);
using said second data, cause a display of the current depth of the needle in at least one of said one or more graphical user interfaces (figs. 3-8 show a graphical user interface display of the current ultrasound image which would include the current depth of the needle when the needle is the ROI being imaged);
cause a display of a window in the at least one of said one or more graphical user interfaces, wherein the window is configured to enhance the needle tip and correlate its location in the ultrasound image with relevant electrodiagnostic data (fig. 4 shows the displayed within a window of the graphical user interface a location of the ROI which is considered the enhanced needle tip location. Additionally, electrodiagnostic data 410 is shown where a time indicator 420 is used to indicate relevant electrodiagnostic data for the ultrasound image of the ROI);
store the ultrasound image with needle position ([0034] discloses storing the ultrasound data in a memory) and electrodiagnostic data ([0044] discloses storing the report which includes the ECG recording (electrodiagnostic data)); and
cause a display of the ultrasound image (figs. 3-8 show the ultrasound image being displayed).
Stuebe does not specifically teach the electrodiagnostic data is motor unit potential (MUP) data; and cause a display of said MUP data on the ultrasound image.
However,
Dou in a similar field of endeavor teaches the electrodiagnostic data is motor unit potential (MUP) data (pg. 1, para. 9 discloses the data is myoelectric data which corresponds to motor unit potential data because it relates to electrical muscle data); and cause a display of said MUP data on the ultrasound image (pg. 4, para. 4, “the myoelectric signal display and the ultrasonic signals display may be displayed on the same screen”. See fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the electrodiagnostic data be motor unit potential (MUP) data; and cause a display of said MUP data on the ultrasound image of Dou to the system of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of allowing the user to more easily view and further be able to interpret the data being presented by reducing clutter on the display.
Regarding claim 6, Stuebe in view of Dou teaches the system of claim 5, as set forth above. Dou further teaches the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to extract from the first data said MUP data (pg. 2, para. 6 discloses the myoelectric sound signal is generated from the signal collected through the electrode) and cause the display of said MUP data near the needle tip on the ultrasound image (pg. 4, para. 4, “the myoelectric signal display and the ultrasonic signals display may be displayed on the same screen”. See fig. 2).
Claim(s) 8 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Frich et al. (US 20200000433, hereinafter Frich).
Regarding claim 8, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe does not specifically teach the third data comprises data indicative of a test set-up support for generating a muscle scoring table from an electromyography protocol.
However,
Frich in a similar field of endeavor teaches the third data comprises data indicative of a test set-up support for generating a muscle scoring table from an electromyography protocol ([0042]-[0043] discloses obtaining an EMG signal in order to verify the deformation values determined from the ultrasound data, where the deformation values correspond to the muscle scoring table data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the third data comprise data indicative of a test set-up support for generating a muscle scoring table from an electromyography protocol of Frich to the system of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of providing the results in a single location so that it is easier for the user to visualize and interpret.
Regarding claim 13, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe does not specifically teach the system is adapted to synchronize a cine buffer and an electromyography buffer.
However,
Frich in a similar field of endeavor teaches the system is adapted to synchronize a cine buffer and an electromyography buffer ([0043] discloses synchronizing in time the EMG signal to the ultrasonography image sequence (cine buffer)).
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 system disclosed by Stuebe to be adapted to synchronize a cine buffer and an electromyography buffer in order to enable for direct comparison between the data values, as recognized by Frich ([0043]).
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of O’Dea et al. (US 20050114175, hereinafter O’Dea).
Regarding claim 17, Stuebe teaches the system of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe does not specifically teach when the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to: cause the ultrasound device to access a computing device storing a list of a plurality of open ultrasound scan orders; cause the ultrasound scan order to be selected from the list of the plurality of open ultrasound scan orders; add the selected ultrasound scan order to a local study list of the ultrasound device; acquire one or more images corresponding to the selected ultrasound scan order; and transmit the one or more acquired images to a storage server.
However,
O’Dea in a similar field of ultrasound imaging teaches a processor configured to:
cause the ultrasound device to access a computing device storing a list of a plurality of open ultrasound scan orders ([0044] “information relating to a scheduled examination is obtained at 702, for example from the local data system 250…this may include obtaining (e.g., downloading) …information relating to the type(s) of scans schedule to be performed…the information is stored within a patient database…such as the work list”);
cause the ultrasound scan order to be selected from the list of the plurality of open ultrasound scan orders ([0044] discloses step 702 where a scan order is obtained selected from a worklist of open scan orders);
add the selected ultrasound scan order to a local study list of the ultrasound device ([0044]-[0045] discloses the order is downloaded to the local ultrasound system);
acquire one or more images corresponding to the selected ultrasound scan order ([0046] discloses in step 706 performing the scan according to the order. Also see [0041] which discloses obtaining scanned images); and
transmit the one or more acquired images to a storage server ([0047] discloses storing the information regarding the scan in the patient database. Additionally, [0041] discloses the images are stored within a permanent store member 556).
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 system disclosed by Stuebe to have the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to: cause the ultrasound device to access a computing device storing a list of a plurality of open ultrasound scan orders; cause the ultrasound scan order to be selected from the list of the plurality of open ultrasound scan orders; add the selected ultrasound scan order to a local study list of the ultrasound device; acquire one or more images corresponding to the selected ultrasound scan order; and transmit the one or more acquired images to a storage server in order to increase efficiency of the examination, as set forth by O’Dea ([0003]).
Regarding claim 18, Stuebe in view of O’Dea teaches the system of claim 17, as set forth above. O’Dea further teaches the computing device is a DICOM worklist server and wherein the storage server is a DICOM storage server ([0045] discloses the computing device and databases are DICOM’s).
Regarding claim 19, Stuebe in view of O’Dea teaches the system of claim 17, as set forth above. O’Dea further teaches the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to: receive an ultrasound scan order from a user ([0028] discloses the user input 120 is used to enter ultrasound scans to be performed which corresponds to receiving an ultrasound scan order from a user); and submit the ultrasound scan order to an electronic health record system ([0028] discloses the information is stored within the local data system 250 such as a patient database which is considered an electronic health record system).
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 system disclosed by Stuebe in view of O’Dea to have the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to: receive an ultrasound scan order from a user; and submit the ultrasound scan order to an electronic health record system in order to provide the user with greater control, thereby ensuring the procedure they want to be performed is performed which increases efficiency.
Regarding claim 20, Stuebe in view of O’Dea teaches the system of claim 17, as set forth above. O’Dea further teaches the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to display the one or more acquired images ([0017] discloses the prepared ultrasound frames are displayed on the display system 118) and link the one or more acquired images to the ultrasound scan order (fig. 7 shows the display includes information such as the patient ID 412 which links the display to the scan order).
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 system disclosed by Stuebe in view of O’Dea to have the plurality of programmatic instructions is executed by the processor, the processor is further configured to display the one or more acquired images and link the one or more acquired images to the ultrasound scan order in order to make it easier for the user to analyze the results and further retrieve the image for later use.
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights