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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendments and remarks filed on 3/27/2026 have been entered. Claims 11-12 are canceled. Objection to claim 14 is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s remarks. Specification objection is withdrawn in light of amendments to the abstract. Claims 1-10 and 13-16 are pending.
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 1-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Independent claim 1 recites, for example, the following abstract ideas: “…converts third data based on a reception signal for image generation received by the first ultrasonic probe into fourth data…”, falls within mental process. There is no specific machine or device that is not known or generic recited in the claim limitations, see MPEP § 2106.05(b). The limitations have no specifics to the algorithmic foundation or dimensionality associated with the echo signal and as such can be considered computations that can be performed in the mind using visual inspection or simple pen and paper. Further the usage of a learned model machine-learned does not provide the process/algorithm specifics in the recited claims and thus can be considered a process/algorithm that is generic and of the simplest form that one can be performed by hand. Further, limitations “…a first ultrasonic probe that transmits and receives ultrasonic waves to and from a subject…”, “…second data comprises either image data generated based on signals received by a third ultrasound probe…” and “output the fourth data.”, are considered extra solution activities recited at a high level of generality with no specific machine or device disclosed that is not generic or known to perform the limitations. Further, analogous limitations are found in claims 15 and 16.
The judicial exceptions are not integrated into a “practical application” as defined by the Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis documented in Federal Register 84(4), issued on 07 January 2019, and MPEP § 2106. The limitation of “…a hardware processor…” in claims 1 and 16, simply represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. Further, a mobile device is also considered a computer processing device and thus also represents implementing the abstract ideas with a computer. MPEP § 2106.05(f) notes that “using a computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea” is not sufficient to integrate a judicial exception into a practical application as interpreted by the court(s). Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 175 USPQ 673 (1972) “held that simply implementing a mathematical principle on a physical machine, namely a computer, was not a patentable application of that principle and Intellectual Ventures LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2016) established that mental processes encompass acts which, absent anything beyond generic computer components, may be “performed by a human, mentally or with pen and paper.” Intellectual Ventures additionally established that if a claim, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it is still in the mental processes category of abstract ideas unless the step(s) cannot be practically performed in the mind. Therefore, a positive recitation of the associated computer would not necessarily result in patent eligible subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 do not sufficiently link the subject matter to a practical application or recite element(s) which constitute significantly more than the abstract ideas identified. The depending claims are directed to additional limitations which encompass abstract ideas consistent with those identified above that are well-understood, routine and/or conventional activity. Further, dependent claims 2-10 and 13-14 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
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 1-10 and 13-16 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.
Regarding claim 1 and analogous limitations found in claims 15-16, with regard to limitations “…and second data comprises either image data generated based on signals received by a third ultrasound probe that is of a different type from both the first and second ultrasound probes, or image data from a modality different from that of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, “the hardware processor that converts third data based on a reception signal for image generation received by the first ultrasonic probe into fourth data configured to appear as if it were the second data by use the leaned model…” are unclear the connection of the third data conversion to the reception signal for image generation. It is unclear how the data is “converted”. The term “convert” in plain meaning is to adapt or change, it is unclear what is entailed to “convert” the third data, such as processing or algorithm or transformation or something else in the converting process and also what the connection of the third data with the second data for the conversion to occur. The metes and bounds of the claims are unclear.
Regarding claim 6, limitation “…wherein the hardware processor outputs information indicating that the fourth data is a processed image…”, is unclear what is meant by “processed image” as all data obtained by a probe or imager formed into an image undergoes computer processing of the beams/waveforms/etc. It is unclear how the processor is able to indicate that the fourth data that is connected to third data in claim 1 that is “converted data” connected to the first ultrasonic probe is processed. It is unclear the metes and bounds of the claim.
Regarding Claim 8, limitation “…wherein the hardware processor outputs information indicating that the third data is an original image from captured data…” is unclear what is meant by “original image” with respect to the third data, which is converted in claim 1. It is unclear how the third data which is a form of converted data as recited in claim 1 is intended to be indicated as an “original image from captured data”. It is unclear the intended connection of the first ultrasonic probe, the reception signal and the third data which is “configured to appear as if it were the second data” as recited in claim 1 is now providing information as if it was an “original image from captured data. The metes and bounds of the claim are unclear.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “…wherein the hardware processor outputs fifth data from the fourth data by using a discriminator that is machine-learned by using learning data in which the fourth data obtained by converting the first data using the learned model, and a predetermined correct label are made into a data set.” is unclear the algorithm or approach entailed in the used machine-learning to utilize a discriminator as it has not been established in the previous claims. A discriminator is one aspect in a neural network approach, such as a generative adversarial network, which is unclear if this is the intended with respect to claim 13 in light of claim 1 from which it depends that only recites using a machine-learned model of first and second data.
Response to Arguments
With regards to Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 101 that the amended claim 1 and 15-16 limitations, “The amended claim clarifies the definition of the second data, and the conversion of third data into fourth data utilizing the learned model. Applicant respectfully submits that at least these elements of amended claim 1 provides the "significantly more" required to meet the standards of 35 U.S.C. 101. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1-16 are drawn to patentable subject matter and requests withdrawal of the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 101.” (Remarks, pg. 2), Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner recommends review of the 2019 and 2024 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance (2019 PEG) specifically Examples 39 and 47. Example 39 for example was deemed eligible as it recites the particulars of how the convolutional neural network/artificial intelligence approach works, the claim is directed to making the computer work and how the model is being trained and designed. In contrast Applicant’s recited claims simply use a convolutional neural network/artificial intelligence approach and provides claims that can be considered collections of intangible data that mathematical operations are performed on to obtain a result.
Applicant did not provide further arguments with regards to the claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections.
Applicant’s arguments regarding 35 U.S.C. 102 rejection is moot.
Conclusion
Claims 1-10 and 13-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 112(b).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Joshi et. al. U.S. 20230123621 teaches a computer assisted navigation system for surgery using a modality synthesis neural network framework converting various imaging modalities which are registered and tracked to a reference.
Hope et. al. U.S. 20190336107 teaches an ultrasound system for obtaining image and/or tissue information using neural network.
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 AMAL FARAG whose telephone number is (571)270-3432. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 - 5:30 M-F.
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 (571) 270-1790. 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.
/AMAL ALY FARAG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights