DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 01/21/2026.
Claims 1-26 are pending in the case.
No claims have been cancelled.
Claims 24-26 have been added.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 are independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8-12, 14-20, 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto (US 2004/0133107 A1, published 07/08/2004, hereinafter “Hashimoto”) in view of Sano et al. (US 2004/0254465 A1, published 12/16/2004, hereinafter “Sano”), further in view of Morrise et al. (US 2022/0061812 A1, filed on 08/23/2021, hereinafter “Morrise”) and further in view of Yoneyama et al. (US 2018/0092629 A1, published 04/05/2018, hereinafter “Yoneyama”).
Independent Claim 1 and Claim 9:
Hashimoto discloses a system comprising a display comprising:
a first time-bar display adapted to provide visual indications of upcoming actions on the display (The display comprises a bar that includes the date and time (time bar) and a bar shaped panel that displays the protocol actions along with time information (time bar) and includes visual indications of upcoming actions associated with a current protocol, Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7, abstract, ¶ [0071]-[0074], [0079].); and
Hashimoto does not appear to expressly teach a display comprising:
a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display;
a second time-bar display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the CEUS exam on the display;
wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam.
However, Sano teaches a display comprising:
a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display (The user can interact with a menu to select activity components (actions and events) to edit an editable workflow protocol for an ultrasound exam, Sano: Figs. 3 and 30, abstract, ¶ [0001], [0108]. The added actions can be time based, Sano: Fig. 33, ¶ [0084], [0096], [0228]. The ultrasound exam can be contrast enhanced, Sano: Fig. 30, ¶ [0221]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of Hashimoto to comprise:
a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display, as taught by Sano.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling beginner users to customize workflows according to his/her needs (Sano: ¶ [0001]-[0011].).
Hashimoto in view of Sano does not appear to expressly teaches a display comprising
a second time-bar display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the CEUS exam on the display;
wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam.
However, Morrise teaches a display comprising:
a second display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the ultrasound exam on the display (The interface provides a screen (display) comprising three panels, the left most panel comprises the protocol, the middle panel displays a full-size version of an ultrasound image selected in the right most panel, Morrise: Figs. 2 and 3, abstract, ¶ [0073]. The images can include loops, Morrise: ¶ [0022].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of Hashimoto in view of Sano to comprise:
a second display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the ultrasound exam on the display, as taught by Morrise.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for reviewing the ultrasound images (Morrise: ¶ [0003], [0073].).
In implementing the image review feature of Morrise into the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano, the retrieved ultrasound images would correspond to contrast-enhanced ultrasound images since the ultrasound images acquired during the ultrasound exam are for a contrast-enhance ultrasound exam in the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano and the screen that comprises the panel that displays the protocol (as taught by Hashimoto) would be a time-bar display since the panel that displays the protocol comprises time information in the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano. Accordingly, Hashimoto in view of Sano and further in view of Morrise teaches a display comprising:
a second time-bar display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the CEUS exam on the display.
Hashimoto in view of Sano and further in view of Morrise does not appear to expressly teach a display wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam.
However, Yoneyama teaches a display wherein the user can switch to another protocol during the CEUS exam (Yoneyama: ¶ [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0085].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display of Hashimoto in view of Sano and further in view of Morrise wherein the user can switch to another protocol during the CEUS exam, as taught by Morrise.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to utilize the appropriate protocol based on real-time determinations on the type of protocol that is needed (Yoneyama: ¶ [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0085].).
In combination, Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama teaches a display wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam (The user can switch to another protocol during the CEUS exam, Yoneyama: ¶ [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0085]. The CEUS exam is performed in the first time-bar display and the protocol comprises time-based actions, Hashimoto: Fig. 3, ¶ [0069]-[0074]. Accordingly, when the user switches from one protocol to another the current set of time-based actions will be replaced (altered) with a new set of time-based actions associated with the other protocol.).
Claim 2:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a display wherein the time-based actions comprise image or loop acquisitions, or both (Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7, ¶ [0003], [0005]).
Claim 3:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a display wherein the selected time-based actions comprise changes to ultrasound settings comprising one or more of: a change in a number of ultrasonic signal transmissions; a pulse repetition interval between consecutive ultrasonic signal transmissions; a frequency of the ultrasonic signals; an ultrasonic pulse sequence; and a frame rate of captured ultrasonic images (A freeze ON action corresponds to a frame rate of less than one while a regular frame rate is 30, Hashimoto: ¶ [0057], [0097]).
Claim 4:
The rejection of claim 3 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama wherein the time-based actions comprise changes to acoustic settings to adjust one or more of a number of acoustic signal transmissions, an acoustic signal frequency, and a frame rate of acquisitions (The selected component can include mode changes including changing the mode to the b-mode, Sano: Fig. 3, ¶ [0005], [0064], [0067]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that the b-mode for an ultrasonic medical imaging device would comprise at least a frame rate of acquisitions.).
Claim 5:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a display wherein the time-based actions comprise ultrasound freeze and unfreeze actions (Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7, ¶ [0003], [0005]).
Claim 6:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a display wherein the selected time-based actions and events are shown during the CEUS exam (Hashimoto: Fig. 3, ¶ [0069]-[0074]).
Claim 8:
The rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a display wherein the second time-bar display is adapted to link a particular point in the editable protocol with an image or a loop acquired during the CEUS exam (Morrise: Fig. 3, ¶ [0064]).
Independent Claims 10 and 17:
Hashimoto discloses a tangible, non-transitory computer readable medium that stores instructions, which when executed by processor, cause the processor to perform a method comprising (Although a memory and processor is not explicitly described, Examiner take Official Notice that it is well-known, routine and conventional to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to store instructions in a computing device to perform particular functions when executed by a processor. One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a means for generating the graphical user interface disclosed by Hashimoto, Hashimoto: Figs 3-8, abstract.):
providing a first time-bar display adapted to allow the user to provide visual indications of upcoming actions on the display (The display comprises a bar that includes the date and time (time bar) and a bar shaped panel that displays the protocol actions along with time information (time bar) and includes visual indications of upcoming actions associated with a current protocol, Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7, abstract, ¶ [0071]-[0074], [0079].); and
Hashimoto does not appear to expressly teach a medium and method comprising:
providing a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display;
providing a second time-bar display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the CEUS exam on the display;
wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam.
However, Sano teaches a medium and method comprising:
providing a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display (The user can interact with a menu to select activity components (actions and events) to edit an editable workflow protocol for an ultrasound exam, Sano: Figs. 3 and 30, abstract, ¶ [0001], [0108]. The added actions can be time based, Sano: Fig. 33, ¶ [0084], [0096], [0228]. The ultrasound exam can be contrast enhanced, Sano: Fig. 30, ¶ [0221]).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the medium and method of Hashimoto to comprise:
providing a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display, as taught by Sano.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling beginner users to customize workflows according to his/her needs (Sano: ¶ [0001]-[0011].).
Hashimoto in view of Sano does not appear to expressly teaches a medium and method comprising
providing a second time-bar display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the CEUS exam on the display;
wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam.
However, Morrise teaches a medium and method comprising:
providing a second display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the ultrasound exam on the display (The interface provides a screen (display) comprising three panels, the left most panel comprises the protocol, the middle panel displays a full-size version of an ultrasound image selected in the right most panel, Morrise: Figs. 2 and 3, abstract, ¶ [0073]. The images can include loops, Morrise: ¶ [0022].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the medium and method of Hashimoto in view of Sano to comprise:
a second display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the ultrasound exam on the display, as taught by Morrise.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to provide a more effective means for reviewing the ultrasound images (Morrise: ¶ [0003], [0073].).
In implementing the image review feature of Morrise into the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano, the retrieved ultrasound images would correspond to contrast-enhanced ultrasound images since the ultrasound images acquired during the ultrasound exam are for a contrast-enhance ultrasound exam in the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano and the screen that comprises the panel that displays the protocol (as taught by Hashimoto) would be a time-bar display since the panel that displays the protocol comprises time information in the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano. Accordingly, Hashimoto in view of Sano and further in view of Morrise teaches a medium and method comprising:
providing a second time-bar display adapted to allow the user to display images and loops acquired during the CEUS exam on the display.
Hashimoto in view of Sano and further in view of Morrise does not appear to expressly teach a medium and method wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam.
However, Yoneyama teaches a method wherein the user can switch to another protocol during the CEUS exam (Yoneyama: ¶ [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0085].).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the medium and method of Hashimoto in view of Sano and further in view of Morrise wherein the user can switch to another protocol during the CEUS exam, as taught by Morrise.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by enabling the user to utilize the appropriate protocol based on real-time determinations on the type of protocol that is needed (Yoneyama: ¶ [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0085].).
In combination, Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama teaches a medium and method wherein the first time-bar display is adapted to allow the user to alter time-based actions during the CEUS exam (The user can switch to another protocol during the CEUS exam, Yoneyama: ¶ [0073], [0077]-[0079], [0082]-[0085]. The CEUS exam is performed in the first time-bar display and the protocol comprises time-based actions, Hashimoto: Fig. 3, ¶ [0069]-[0074]. Accordingly, when the user switches from one protocol to another the current set of time-based actions will be replaced (altered) with a new set of time-based actions associated with the other protocol.).
Claims 11 and 19:
The rejection of claims 10 and 17 are incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a medium and method wherein the time-based actions comprise ultrasound freeze and unfreeze actions (Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7, ¶ [0003], [0005]).
Claims 12 and 20:
The rejection of claims 10 and 17 are incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a medium and method wherein the selected time-based actions and events are shown during the CEUS exam (Hashimoto: Fig. 3, ¶ [0069]-[0074]).
Claims 14 and 22:
The rejection of claims 10 and 17 are incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a medium and method wherein the second time-bar display is adapted to link a particular point in the editable protocol with an image or a loop acquired during the CEUS exam (Morrise: Fig. 3, ¶ [0064]).
Claims 15 and 23:
The rejection of claims 10 and 17 are incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a medium and method wherein the second time-bar display is adapted to provide images or loops at particular times of the CEUS exam by navigating across the second time-bar display (The user can select a particular step (which would correspond to a particular time of the CEUS) to view images associated with the particular step by utilizing a mouse, Morrise: Fig. 3, ¶ [0036], [0076]. One of ordinary skill in the art would know that a mouse controls a cursor movement on the screen. Accordingly, to reach the displayed steps, the user would have to move the mouse cursor across the screen (time-bar display).).
Claim 16:
The rejection of claim 10 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a method wherein the user interface comprising a graph user interface (GUI) adapted to function with the display (Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7.)
Claim 18:
The rejection of claim 17 is incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a medium wherein the time-based actions comprise image or loop acquisitions, or both (Hashimoto: Figs. 3-7, ¶ [0003], [0005]).
Claims 24, 25 and 26:
The rejection of claims 1, 10 and 17 are incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama further teaches a medium wherein an alert is provided on the display to prompt a user to be ready for the upcoming action in a specified time (Hashimoto: Fig. 5, ¶ [0085]-[0086]).
Claim(s) 7, 13 and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise, further in view of Yoneyama and further in view of Besson et al. (US 2009/0012821 A1, published 01/08/2009, hereinafter “Besson”).
Claims 7, 13 and 21:
The rejection of claims 6, 12 and 20 are incorporated. Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama does not appear to expressly teach a display, medium and method wherein the selected time-based actions and events are enhanced by audio or haptic prompts.
However, Bresson teaches a display, medium and method wherein steps of a workflow are enhanced by audio or haptic prompts (Bresson: ¶ [0040] last sentence.).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the display, medium and method of Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama wherein steps of a workflow are enhanced by audio or haptic prompts, as taught by Bresson.
One would have been motivated to make such a combination in order to improve the user’s experience by better assisting users in perform workflow steps (Bresson: ¶ [0040] last sentence.).
In implementing the audio prompt of Bresson into the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama, the audio prompts associated with workflow steps (as taught by Besson) would be associated with time-based actions and events since the workflow steps in the invention of Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama correspond to time-based actions and events. Accordingly, in combination, Hashimoto in view of Sano, further in view of Morrise and further in view of Yoneyama and further in view of Besson teaches a display, medium and method wherein the selected time-based actions and events are enhanced by audio or haptic prompts.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment to claim 1 has been fully considered and is persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejections of claims 1-9 are respectfully withdrawn.
Applicant’s prior art arguments have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
As an initial issue, Applicant argues that the rejection in view of Morrise, et al. (hereinafter “Morrise) is incomplete and therefore improper because the effective filing date of Morrise is 08/25/2020 which corresponds to a provisional application but a copy of the provisional application has not been provided in order to verify the subject matter for which Morrise is relied (Remarks: page 9). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
While it is true the provisional application of Morrise was filed on 08/25/2020 (over one year before the effective filing date of the present application: 08/30/2021), the patent application of Morrise was filed on 08/23/2021 (seven days before the effective filing date of the present application). As such, the provisional application filing date is not necessary to establish a priority date earlier than the priority date of the present application. Therefore, a copy of the provisional application is not required to be provided. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
In regards to Claim 1, Applicant argues that the prior art of record does not teach “a menu comprising selectable components of an editable protocol adapted to allow a user to select time-based actions and events of an upcoming CEUS exam on the display” because Hashimoto merely reveals another operation is available (e.g. the fact that a freeze can be applied), but has no temporal relationship to the current operation presented on the display (Remarks: page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner does not rely on Morrise to teach the cited limitation, rather Examiner relies on Sano et al. (see page 5 of the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 10/21/2025) to teach the cited limitation. Accordingly, Applicant’s argument is not persuasive.
Therefore, Examiner respectfully asserts that the cited art sufficiently teaches the limitations recited in the claims.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DANIEL RODRIGUEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-3633. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 5:30 am - 2:30 pm.
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, Stephen Hong can be reached at (571) 272-4124. 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.
/DANIEL RODRIGUEZ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2178