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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
In the manner set forth in MPEP 609.05(b), the Examiner has considered all of the references submitted as part of the Information Disclosure Statement(s), but has not found any to be particularly relevant. If Applicant is aware of pertinent material in the references, Applicant should so state in a response to this Office action.
MPEP 2004 states:
“It is desirable to avoid the submission of long lists of documents if it can be avoided. Eliminate clearly irrelevant and marginally pertinent cumulative information. If a long list is submitted, highlight those documents which have been specifically brought to applicant’s attention and/or are known to be of most significance. See Penn Yan Boats, Inc. v. Sea Lark Boats, Inc., 359 F. Supp. 948, 175 USPQ 260 (S.D. Fla. 1972), aff ’d, 479 F.2d 1338, 178 USPQ 577 (5th Cir. 1973), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 874 (1974). But cf. Molins PLC v. Textron Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 33 USPQ2d 1823 (Fed. Cir. 1995)”.
Examiner note
The claims have been evaluated under 35 U.S.C. §101 and are directed to patent eligible subject matter. While the claims appear to involve mental steps, the claims are integrated into a practical application because they recite a specific improvement such as reducing the time taken to identify important points and features within CEUS loop (See page 2 lines 21-33). Accordingly, the claims are not directed to an abstract idea and no rejection under §101 is made.
MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) states:
“A claim reciting a judicial exception is not directed to the judicial exception if it also recites additional elements demonstrating that the claim as a whole integrates the exception into a practical application. One way to demonstrate such integration is when the claimed invention improves the functioning of a computer or improves another technology or technical field. The application or use of the judicial exception in this manner meaningfully limits the claim by going beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, and thus transforms a claim into patent-eligible subject matter.”
MPEP 2106.05(a) states:
“After the examiner has consulted the specification and determined that the disclosed invention improves technology, the claim must be evaluated to ensure the claim itself reflects the disclosed improvement in technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Symantec Corp., 838 F.3d 1307, 1316, 120 USPQ2d 1353, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (patent owner argued that the claimed email filtering system improved technology by shrinking the protection gap and mooting the volume problem, but the court disagreed because the claims themselves did not have any limitations that addressed these issues). That is, the claim must include the components or steps of the invention that provide the improvement described in the specification. However, the claim itself does not need to explicitly recite the improvement described in the specification (e.g., "thereby increasing the bandwidth of the channel").”
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 11, the limitation of “if” should be rewritten as “when” since applicant fails to disclose what happens if this condition is not met. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is directed to a computer-readable medium. The definition of CRM is open-ended and hence transitory embodiments are not excluded.
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.
Claim(s) (1-10, 13-15) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by RYOO et al. (hereinafter RYOO)(US Publication 2017/0100101 A1)
Re claim 1, RYOO discloses an apparatus for use in analysing ultrasound image data of a subject (See fig. 1 where it teaches an ultrasound image processor and analyzer.), the apparatus comprising: memory comprising instruction data representing a set of instructions (See fig. 1 where it teaches a processor and analyzer, wherein a memory is disclosed implicitly and/or fig. 16: 1500); and a processor (See fig. 1: 110 where it teaches a processor.) configured to communicate with the memory and to execute the set of instructions, wherein the set of instructions, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to: obtain contrast-enhanced ultrasound image data comprising a plurality of frames, the plurality of frames being a temporal sequence of frames (See fig. 2A, 3; ¶ 63-65, 76 where it teaches obtaining a contrast-enhanced ultrasound image comprising a sequence of frames.); estimate at least one time point corresponding to at least one event (See fig. 2D: T1, T2; fig. 3; ¶ 66, 68, 73, 83 where it teaches a time period where a size of the object has decreased and/or a time period where the object has deviated outside the ROI.); select a sample of frames from the plurality of frames based on the at least one estimated time point (See fig. 2D; 3; ¶ 73, 83, 88 where it teaches selecting frames based on the event.); and classify the sample of frames to derive a feature. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 83, 88 where it teaches the selected frames show object such as tumor which deviates outside an ROI, periodic movement occurs, a size of the object changes and/or the selected frames are classified as defective frames.)
Re claim 2, RYOO discloses wherein the processor is further caused to classify each of the sample of frames and to derive the feature based on the classification of each of the sample of frames. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 87-88)
Re claim 3, RYOO discloses wherein the feature is derived using a classification algorithm or by receiving input by a user responsive to presenting the classification of the frames to the user. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 87-88)
Re claim 4, RYOO discloses wherein the feature is associated with at least event, and the feature is at least one of: a degree of enhancement, a pattern of enhancement, washout type, early washout, enhancement changing from hyper enhancement to iso enhancement, enhancement changing from iso enhancement to hypo enhancement. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 87-88)
Re claim 5, RYOO discloses wherein the processor is further caused to select at least two time periods based on the at least one estimated time point, and to select the sample of frames within each of the at least two time periods, and the time interval of the selected sample of frames in a first time period of the at least two time periods is different from that in a second time period of the at least two time periods. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 83)
Re claim 6, RYOO discloses wherein the processor is further caused to extract a plurality of subsets from the sample of frames with each subsets spanning the at least two time periods; and to classify the plurality of subsets to derive the feature. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 83)
Re claim 7, RYOO discloses wherein the estimation of the at least one time point is based on at least one of: a rough time intensity curve, a time intensity curve, user input. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 83)
Re claim 8, RYOO discloses wherein the estimation of the at least one time point is based on a rough time intensity curve which is determined by processing a region of each frame at a predefined location relative to the frame to produce a time intensity curve of the plurality of frames; and identifying the at least one time point at which an event occurs based on the time intensity curve. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 73, 83)
Re claim 9, RYOO discloses wherein the sample of frames is one of: a number of frames around the estimated time point; a number of frames between two estimated time points; frames in a predetermined time period. (See fig. 2A, 2D, 3; ¶ 76, 83, 87-88)
Re claim 10, RYOO discloses wherein the event is at least one of: arterial phase onset, arterial phase peak, peak enhancement of a region of interest, arterial phase, portal vein phase, late phase, time from arterial phase onset to peak enhancement of a region of interest. (See fig. 2D, 3; ¶ 83)
Claims (13-15) have been analyzed and rejected w/r to claim 1. Furthermore, RYOO teaches a transducer and CRM.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims (10-11) are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. (Prior art of record fails to teach these limitations.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
YIN et al (US 2022/0301132 A1) disclose super-resolution reconstruction preprocessing method and super-resolution reconstruction method for contrast-enhanced ultrasound images.
Vasile Gui et al “Simultaneous Filtering and Tracking of Focal Liver Lesion for Time Intensity Curve Analysis in Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound Imagery”, IEEE 2014.
Contact
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEON FLORES whose telephone number is (571)270-1201. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am - 6pm.
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, HENOK SHIFERAW can be reached at 571-272-4637. 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.
/LEON FLORES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2676 March 18, 2026