Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/717,515

SYSTEM AND METHOD TO PREDICT NEED FOR USE OF A CONTRAST AGENT IN ULTRASOUND IMAGING

Final Rejection §102
Filed
Jun 07, 2024
Examiner
BRUTUS, JOEL F
Art Unit
3797
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Koninklijke Philips N V
OA Round
2 (Final)
72%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 7m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 72% — above average
72%
Career Allow Rate
922 granted / 1276 resolved
+2.3% vs TC avg
Strong +18% interview lift
Without
With
+18.0%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 7m
Avg Prosecution
48 currently pending
Career history
1324
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
5.9%
-34.1% vs TC avg
§103
47.7%
+7.7% vs TC avg
§102
14.9%
-25.1% vs TC avg
§112
23.6%
-16.4% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1276 resolved cases

Office Action

§102
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 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hsieh et al (Pub. No.: US 2018/0144243) Regarding claims 1, 8, 15, Hsieh et al disclose a method of performing ultrasound imaging, the method comprising: retrieving prior imaging data for a patient [see 0051, 0075] by disclosing deep learning machines can be used to quantitatively measure qualitative aspects of images. For example, deep learning machines can be utilized after an image has been acquired [see 0075]; segmenting relevant structures (observable features) from the prior imaging data [see 0051, 0065, 0067, 0082, 0262-0263] by disclosing medical image visualization software allows a clinician to segment, annotate, measure, and/or report functional or anatomical characteristics on various locations of a medical image. In some examples, a clinician may utilize the medical image visualization software to identify regions of interest with the medical image [see 0051]; extracting quantitative parameters (functional or anatomical characteristics) of the patient from the segmented relevant structures [see 0051, 0054, 0058, 0067, 0262-0263] by disclosing a machine provided with a large set of well classified data is better equipped to distinguish and extract the features pertinent to successful classification of new data [see 0067]; applying a trained predictive model to the extracted quantitative parameters to determine whether or not to apply a contrast agent to the patient [see 0055, 0058, 0065, 0215] by disclosing the deployed learning device 2050 can determine how to scan the patient 1406, use or do not use contrast injection (e.g., how fast, concentration, total injection volume, etc.), use or do not use dual energy, etc. Settings can be evaluated and configured for a plurality of imaging modalities, such as CT, MICT, SPECT, PET [see 0215]. Regarding claims 2, 16, Hsieh et al disclose before the retrieving, determining when prior imaging data are available for the patient [see 0075]. Regarding claims 3, 13, Hsieh et al disclose wherein when the prior imaging data are not available for the patient, instead of the segmenting, retrieving non-imaging data and extracting the quantitative parameters from the non-imaging data [see 0164, 0176, 0193] by disclosing personalize patient variables are input to the acquisition engine 1430. Personalized patient variables can include patient height, patient weight, imaging type, reason for exam, patient health history [see 0193]. Regarding claims 4, 9, 14, 17, 20, Hsieh et al disclose wherein the non-imaging data comprises demographic data, or clinical data from the patient, or both [see 0164, 0176, 0193] by disclosing personalize patient variables are input to the acquisition engine 1430. Personalized patient variables can include patient height, patient weight, imaging type, reason for exam, patient health history [see 0193]. Regarding claims 5, 10, 18, Hsieh et al disclose wherein the prior imaging data comprises one or more of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data and computer tomography (CT) imaging data [see 0177, 0215]. Regarding claim 6, Hsieh et al disclose wherein the segmenting further comprises applying a model containing anatomy-specific segmentation parameters [see 0259]. Regarding claims 7, 11, 19, Hsieh et al disclose wherein the relevant structures comprise rib spacing [see 0259, 0263], or a thickness of subcutaneous fat, or both [see 0262]. Regarding claim 12, Hsieh et al disclose wherein the ultrasound imaging device comprises a cardiac imaging device [see 0119, 0215-0216, 0257, 0259]. Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Hsieh et al. fail to disclose the steps of segmenting structures from prior imaging data, then using those segmented structures to extract quantitative parameters, and then apply a trained model to those quantitative parameters to determine whether or not to apply a contrast agent to the patient. Hsieh et al. mention segmenting images using software, Para. [0051], and use of patient parameters, Para. [0143], but fail to contemplate extracting those patient parameters from the segmented relevant structures. Hsich et al. mention using a deployed learning device to determine whether or not to use contrast injection, Para. [0215], but utterly fail to contemplate making such determination from their extracted patient parameters. The examiner disagrees because the same machine that does the extracting is the same machine that performs the analysis with the extracted data by disclosing extracting quantitative parameters (functional or anatomical characteristics) of the patient from the segmented relevant structures [see 0051, 0054, 0058, 0067, 0262-0263] by disclosing a machine provided with a large set of well classified data is better equipped to distinguish and extract the features pertinent to successful classification of new data [see 0067]; applying a trained predictive model to the extracted quantitative parameters to determine whether or not to apply a contrast agent to the patient [see 0055, 0058, 0065, 0215] by disclosing the deployed learning device 2050 can determine how to scan the patient 1406, use or do not use contrast injection (e.g., how fast, concentration, total injection volume, etc.), use or do not use dual energy, etc. Settings can be evaluated and configured for a plurality of imaging modalities, such as CT, MICT, SPECT, PET [see 0215]. 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 JOEL F BRUTUS whose telephone number is (571)270-3847. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Sat, 11:00 AM to 7:00 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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. /JOEL F BRUTUS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 07, 2024
Application Filed
May 25, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102
Sep 02, 2025
Response Filed
Mar 07, 2026
Final Rejection — §102 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599299
METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR MULTIMODAL SOFT TISSUE DIAGNOSTICS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594131
SYSTEM AND METHOD FOR NAVIGATION
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594124
MEDICAL SYSTEMS AND RELATED METHODS
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12586191
IMAGE PROCESSING APPARATUS, MEDICAL IMAGE DIAGNOSTIC APPARATUS, AND BLOOD PRESSURE MONITOR
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12579496
INTRAOPERATIVE VIDEO REVIEW
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
72%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+18.0%)
3y 7m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1276 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month