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 .
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 1/1/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of:
U.S. Patent No. 10,433,819,
U.S. Patent No. 11,324,486, and/or
any patent granted on US Application No. 18,592,282
has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
It is noted that the approved terminal disclaimer also disclaims the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. application 12/029,615. However, the outstanding double patenting rejections are in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,615 rather than the disclaimed U.S. application 12/029,615, and are therefore maintained.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: the specification makes no mention of a “reference plane” as recited in the independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 7 recites limitations directed towards ‘automatically acquiring the measurement plane image based at least one of a brightness value or a gradient magnitude of a predetermined region in the candidate planes.’
The specification discloses using machine learning as an alternative to using a brightness value or a gradient magnitude (“the score may be determined by a machine learning classifier, or may be a brightness value of a specific region or the total sum of gradient magnitudes”, [0125]). Claim 7 is therefore directed to a different embodiment than that of claim 1 (i.e., which requires use of AI to acquire the measurement plane).
Claim 7 therefore attempts to improperly combine features of different embodiments, and thus present new matter.
Claim 11 recites “at least one reference plane and the at least one measurement plane comprises at least one of a Trans-Thalamic Plane (TTP), a Trans-Ventricular Plane (TVP), a Trans-Cerebellar Plane (TCP), or a Mid Sagittal Plane (MSP).”
The specification does not disclose that the reference plane is a TTP, TVP, or TCP. In contrast, the TTP, TVP, and TCP are the measurement planes ([0021]). Similarly, the specification does not disclose that the measurement plane is an MSP. In contrast, the MSP appears to be the reference plane, as best understood in light of the lack of antecedent basis for the term “reference plane” in the specification, as noted in the specification objection above.
Claim 11 thus lacks proper written description support.
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 7, 11, and 12 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 7 is indefinite because it is unclear how the measurement plane image is acquired “based at least one of a brightness value or a gradient magnitude of a predetermined region in the candidate planes”, as claim 1 sets forth that the measurement plane image is acquired using an AI model. As explained in the written description rejection above, the claim attempts to improperly mix alternative embodiments. Moreover, it is unclear how the ‘acquisition’ relates to the ‘acquisition’ in claim 1. It is unclear if these are two different ‘acquiring’ steps.
Claim 11 is indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear what is meant by “an object is fetal head”. It is unclear how this limitation relates to the claimed system, as the object does not appear to be used in any way by the claimed system.
There is unclear antecedent basis for “at least one reference plane.” It is unclear if this the previously recited “at least one reference plane”.
Claim 12 is indefinite for the following reasons:
The claim recites dependency upon claim 3, which is cancelled. It is unclear what the claim’s dependency is.
It is unclear what is meant by “operation of operations”. It is unclear how such “operation” relates to the system as a whole and to the previously recited limitations setting forth that the processor is configured to ‘use the AI model’.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1, 4 - 14, and 17 - 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 - 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,615 in view of Lu et al. (US 2009/0074280, of record).
Instant claims 1, 12, 14, and 20 are suggested by reference claim 1, 14, and/or 20, but the reference claims do not recite that the acquisition of the measurement plane image is achieved by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Lu discloses medical diagnostic ultrasound imaging. Lu teaches acquisition of a measurement plane image achieved by using an AI model (“ …features are used by machine-learnt classifiers to detect the position of one or more desired views”, [0006]; [0039]; [0071]).
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 the reference claims to have the acquisition of the measurement plane image be achieved by using an AI model, as taught by Lu, in order to employ robust computational techniques to facilitate detecting standard views.
Instant claims 4 and 17 are suggested by reference claim 1, 14, and/or 20, but the reference claims do not recite that the detection of the reference plane is achieved by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Lu teaches detection of a reference plane achieved by using the AI model (“ …features are used by machine-learnt classifiers to detect the position of one or more desired views”, [0006]; [0039]; [0071]).
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 the reference claims to have the detection of a reference plane be achieved by using the AI model, as taught by Lu, in order to employ robust computational techniques to facilitate detecting standard views. Alternatively, applicant admits that the claimed techniques for detecting the MSP (i.e., the “reference plane”) are well known in the art, to the point where detailed descriptions thereof are omitted ([0103], as published), such that their use is obvious.
Instant claims 5, 6, and 18 are suggested by reference claim 1, 14, and/or 20.
Instant claim 7 is suggested by reference claim 6.
Instant claims 8 and 19 are suggested by reference claim 9.
Instant claim 9 is suggested by reference claim 11.
Instant claim 10 is suggested by reference claim 10.
Instant claim 11 is suggested by reference claim 1, 14, and/or 20.
Instant claim 13 is suggested by reference claim 1, 14, and/or 20.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 4 - 14, and 17 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a mental-process type abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., an ultrasound imaging apparatus.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting a reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data’, and
‘determining candidate planes that are perpendicular to the reference plane’
The limitations, as drafted, amount to nothing more than a series of steps that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example:
a human can ‘detect a reference plane from ultrasound image data’ by looking at the data, or information derived from the data, such as a graphical representation, for example, and mentally identifying the reference plane, and/or with the aid of pen/paper; and
a human can ‘determine candidate planes that are perpendicular to the reference plane’, by looking at the data, or information derived from the data, such as a graphical representation, and mentally identifying candidate planes perpendicular to the reference plane, and/or with the aid of pen/paper.
Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element of a display, which is merely generic hardware for extra-solution activity. The claim further recites a processor to perform the steps, which amounts to nothing more than an instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer. The claim further includes operations of ‘obtaining ultrasound image data acquired by an ultrasonic probe’, ‘automatically acquiring a measurement plane image corresponding to a measurement plane based on the plurality of candidate planes by using an artificial intelligence (Al) model’, and ‘displaying the measurement plane image’, each of which is merely extra-solution activity. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations are directed towards generic hardware for, and steps of, extra-solution activity, as well as an instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 14:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a method of controlling an ultrasonic imaging apparatus.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites limitations directed towards:
‘detecting a reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data’, and
‘determining candidate planes that are perpendicular to the reference plane’
The limitations, as drafted, amount to nothing more than a series of steps that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. For example:
a human can ‘detect a reference plane from ultrasound image data’ by looking at the data, or information derived from the data, such as a graphical representation, for example, and mentally identifying the reference plane, and/or with the aid of pen/paper; and
a human can ‘determine candidate planes that are perpendicular to the reference plane’, by looking at the data, or information derived from the data, such as a graphical representation, and mentally identifying candidate planes perpendicular to the reference plane, and/or with the aid of pen/paper.
Therefore, the limitations recite a mental-process type abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites additional elements of “obtaining ultrasound image data acquired by an ultrasonic probe”, ‘automatically acquiring a measurement plane image corresponding to a measurement plane based on the plurality of candidate planes by using an artificial intelligence (Al) model’ and ‘displaying the measurement plane image’, each of which is merely extra-solution activity. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations are directed towards extra-solution activity. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 20:
The claim is directed to a non-transitory computer readable recording medium having recorded thereon a program, which when executed on a computer, performs the steps of the method of claim 14. The claim element amount to no more than an instruction to implement the judicial exception of claim 14 on a computer. Therefore, the additional limitations, when considered separately and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims:
Dependent claims 4 and 17 recite additional elements directed towards automatically detecting the reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data by using the AI model, which is merely an instruction to implement the judicial exception on a computer.
Dependent claims 5 - 6 and 18 recite additional elements directed towards extracting an anatomical feature from the obtained ultrasound image data, which reads on a mental step. The claims further recite limitations directed towards detecting the reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data by using the anatomical feature, which merely further specifies details of the mental step, and does not preclude the step from being practically performed in the human mind from and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Limitations directed towards the processor or AI model performing the recited steps are merely instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer. Limitations directed towards characterizing the anatomical feature merely limit the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claim 7 recites additional elements directed towards automatically acquiring the measurement plane image based on a brightness value or a gradient magnitude of a predetermined region in the candidate planes, which is extra-solution activity.
Dependent claims 8, 10, and 19 recite additional elements directed towards recognizing a biometric parameter, and acquiring a measured value thereof, which read on a mental step. The limitations directed towards displaying the measured value are extra-solution activity. The limitations directed towards the processor performing the recited steps are merely instructions to implement the judicial exceptions on a computer.
Dependent claim 9 recites additional elements directed towards characterizing the biometric parameter, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claim 11 recites additional elements directed towards characterizing the nature of the planes, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular environment.
Dependent claim 12 recites additional elements directed towards the AI model performing the recited steps, which are merely instructions to implement the judicial exception on a computer.
Dependent claim 13 recites additional elements directed towards the apparatus comprising the probe. However, the probe is recited at a high level of generality, and therefore amount to no more than generic hardware for extra-solution activity.
Therefore, the additional limitations of the dependent claims, when considered separately and in combination, do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4, 7 - 10, 12 - 14, 17, and 19 - 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee at al. (US 2011/0282202, of record, hereinafter "Lee ‘202”) in view of Lu et al. (US 2009/0074280, of record).
Regarding claims 1, 14, and 20, Lee ‘202 shows an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus and method of use thereof (“display system and method,” title, abstract), as well as a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium having stored therein a program for performing the method ([0058]). The system comprises a display (display system, [0037] - [0039] and fig. 2), and a processor ([0058]) configured to:
obtain ultrasound image data acquired by an ultrasonic probe (“apparatus that irradiates an ultrasound signal from a surface of a human body towards a target part”, [0005]; scanning, [0022]);
detect a reference plane from the obtained ultrasound image data (sagittal view, [0009] - [0014]; “side direction … side image … sagittal view”, [0023] - [0025]; [0040] - [0044]);
determine a plurality of candidate planes that are perpendicular to the reference plane (“top planes … planes of a fetus' head … top direction perpendicular to the side direction, [0028]);
automatically acquire a measurement plane image corresponding to a measurement plane (any of the planes used to measure the biparietal diameter (BPD), occipitofrontal diameter (OFD), head circumference (HC), a ratio between the BPD and OFD, and the like, [0010]; [0014]; [0030]) based on the plurality of candidate planes ([0028] - [0030]); and
display the measurement plane image on the display ([0037] – [0044] and fig. 2).
Lee ‘202 fails to show that the acquisition of the measurement plane image is achieved by using an artificial intelligence (AI) model.
Lu discloses medical diagnostic ultrasound imaging. Lu teaches acquisition of a measurement plane image achieved by using an AI model (“ …features are used by machine-learnt classifiers to detect the position of one or more desired views”, [0006]; [0039]; [0071]).
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 Lee ‘202 to have the acquisition of the measurement plane image be achieved by using an AI model, as taught by Lu, in order to employ robust computational techniques to facilitate detecting standard views.
Regarding claims 4 and 17, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Lee ‘202 is not specific to the detection of the reference plane being achieved by using the AI model.
Lu teaches detection of a reference plane achieved by using the AI model (“ …features are used by machine-learnt classifiers to detect the position of one or more desired views”, [0006]; [0039]; [0071]).
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 Lee ‘202 to have the detection of the reference plane be achieved by using an AI model, as taught by Lu, in order to employ robust computational techniques to facilitate detecting standard views.
Alternatively, applicant admits that the claimed techniques for detecting the MSP (i.e., the “reference plane”) are well known in the art, to the point where detailed descriptions thereof are omitted ([0103], as published). 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 combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu to have the detection of the reference plane be achieved by using an AI model, as taught by applicant admitted prior art, in order to employ robust computational techniques to facilitate detecting the reference plane.
Regarding claim 7, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Moreover, in the combined invention of the prior art, the acquisition of the measurement plane image is necessarily based on a brightness value of a predetermined region in the candidate planes, as the pixel values are evaluated to identify the measurement plane image.
Regarding claims 8 and 19, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Lee ‘202 further shows acquiring a measured value by measuring a biometric parameter in the measurement plane image and indicating the measured value on the measurement plane image ([0010]; [0014]; [0030]; [0037] – [0044] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 9, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Lee ‘202 further shows that the biometric parameter comprises head circumference (HC), biparietal diameter (BPD), or occipital frontal diameter (OFD) ([0010]; [0014]; [0030]; [0037] – [0044] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Lee ‘202 further shows that the measured value is indicated by displaying the measured value on the measurement plane image using text ([0010]; [0014]; [0030]; [0037] – [0044] and fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Moreover, in the combined invention of the prior art, the at least one processor is further configured to perform operation of operations by using the Al model, as explained in the art rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 13, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Lee ‘202 further suggests that the system includes the probe (“apparatus that irradiates an ultrasound signal from a surface of a human body towards a target part”, [0005]; scanning, [0022]).
Claims 5 - 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘202 and Lu as applied to claims 1 and 14 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2011/0224546, of record, hereinafter “Lee ‘546”).
Regarding claims 5 - 6 and 18, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above.
Lee ‘202 fails to show that the detecting of the reference plane is by using an anatomical feature extracted from the ultrasound image data, wherein the anatomical feature comprises a falx or Thalami.
Lee ‘546 discloses a three-dimensional ultrasound system. Lee ‘546 teaches detecting of a reference plane by using an anatomical feature extracted from ultrasound image data, wherein the anatomical feature comprises a falx ([0015]; [0022]; [0058] - [0060]; [0095]).
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 combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu to have the detecting of the reference plane be by using an anatomical feature extracted from the ultrasound image data, wherein the anatomical feature comprises a falx, as taught by Lee ‘546, in order to facilitate obtaining an accurate sagittal view from ultrasound data, as discussed by Lee ‘546 ([0010]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee ‘202 and Lu as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lee (US 2011/0054324, of record, hereinafter “Lee ‘324").
Regarding claim 11, the combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu discloses the claimed invention substantially as noted above. Lee ‘202 further shows the object is fetal head ([0010], [0014], [0028], [0030] - [0032], [0041], [0055], and [0057]) and the reference plane comprises a Mid Sagittal Plane (MSP) (sagittal view, [0009] - [0014]; [0024] - [0025]; [0040] - [0044]).
Lee ‘202 is silent as to the measurement plane comprising a Trans-Thalamic Plane (TTP), a Trans-Ventricular Plane (TVP), a Trans-Cerebellar Plane (TCP), or a MSP.
Lee ‘324 teaches a measurement plane that comprises a TTP, a TVP, or a TCP ([0005]; [0031]; [0036] and fig. 7; [0042]).
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 combined invention of Lee ‘202 and Lu to have the measurement plane comprise a TTP, a TVP, or a TCP, as taught by Lee ‘324, in order to facilitate diagnose abnormalities of the fetus' brain, as suggested by Lee ‘324 ([0005]), using standard imaging views that are used ubiquitously in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 14 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments regarding the Double Patenting rejections are not entirely persuasive because the Terminal Disclaimer disclaimed the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of U.S. application 12/029,615. However, the outstanding double patenting rejections are in view of U.S. Patent No. 12,029,615 rather than the disclaimed U.S. application 12/029,615, and are therefore maintained.
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 AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571)272-2714. 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights