DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on 02/19/2016 concerning application no. 18/718,538 filed on 06/11/2024.
Claims 1-18 are pending (Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are withdrawn from consideration).
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/19/2016 has been entered.
Claims 1-18 are pending (Claims 1-11 and 14-15 are withdrawn from consideration).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 12 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.
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 12-13 and 16-18 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 12 is indefinite for the following reasons:
Recites “a reference structure”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art what structure is considered to be a reference that is located in a 3D ultrasound image. One interpretation is that it is a fiducial. Another interpretation is a ROI or an anatomical feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the second transducer”. This claim element is indefinite. It would be unclear to one with ordinary skill in the art if the “second transducer” is the same as the “second transducer array” established in the preceding claim element or is a separate and distinct feature.
Applicant is encouraged to provide consistent and clear language.
Recites “the second transducer”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims that are not discussed above but are cited to be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claims they respectively depend upon.
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 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.
Claims 12-13 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Egorov (PGPUB No. US 2017/0065249) in view of Guenther et al. (PGPUB No. US 2011/0190629).
Regarding claim 12, Egorov teaches an ultrasound imaging system comprising a data processing unit and an ultrasound imaging device having dimensions defined by a flat design body and being operable to acquire three-dimensional ultrasound images, the ultrasound imaging device comprising:
a first transducer array comprising a plurality of ultrasound transducers having a first direction of acquisition (Paragraph 0047 teaches the probe with two arrays with ultrasound elements along both sides of the probe. Fig. 1 shows that the probe arrays are opposite to one another. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the ultrasound image acquisition is from both sides);
a second transducer array comprising a plurality of ultrasound transducers having a second direction of acquisition differing from the first direction of acquisition (Paragraph 0047 teaches the probe with two arrays with ultrasound elements along both sides of the probe. Fig. 1 shows that the probe arrays are opposite to one another. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the ultrasound image acquisition is from both sides); and
the flat design body having a width, a depth, and a height, wherein the width and the depth of the body are larger than the height of the body, wherein the first and second transducer arrays are disposed at sides of the body defined by the width and the depth of the body and facing in substantially opposite directions (Paragraph 0047 teaches the probe with two arrays with ultrasound elements along both sides of the probe. Paragraph 0048 teaches that the recording of the ultrasound signals is on the flat surfaces of the probe. Fig. 1 shows that the probe arrays are opposite to one another. Paragraph 0051 teaches that the ultrasound image acquisition is from both sides. Figs. 1-2 show the height to be smaller than the width and the depth of the probe. That is, the probe face is shown to be greater in both dimensions of its surface than the height of the probe).
However, Egorov is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the data processing unit is operable to determine a spatial position of a target structure shown in a first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array relative to a reference structure shown in a second three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dual array ultrasound imaging, Guenther teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the data processing unit is operable to determine a spatial position of a target structure shown in a first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array relative to a reference structure shown in a second three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer (Paragraphs 0029-30 teaches a data acquired by one or more transducer can be a frame of reference according to a spatial position. This can provide the basis for a a common frame of reference by charging the ultrasound data against information about the position and/or orientation of the ultrasound transducers. Physiologic data, position, orientation and/or geometry of the object of interest can be calculated based on the common frame of reference. This information is derivable form the ultrasound data. The data can be over 3D space. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the object of interest can be assessed according to other physiologic or pathologic structures observed by the ultrasound transducers. Paragraph 0037 teaches that the frame of reference can be according to indication aside for the object of interest. Paragraph 0041 teaches that the reference models may be structures of the object of interest).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Egorov with Guenther’s teaching of assessing the position of the target according to an ultrasound image acting as a frame of reference. This modified apparatus would allow a user to assess and position the probes according to the determined position of the object of interest in real time and allow for further integration with other medical devices (Paragraph 0001 of Guenther). Furthermore, it addresses the need for a real-time detection system for the assessment of objects of interest to thereby reduce possible treatment (Paragraph 0014 of Guenther).
Regarding claim 13, modified Egorov teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 12, as discussed above.
Egorov further teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein the ultrasound imaging device comprises one or more properties of:
the ultrasound imaging device comprises a single acoustic absorber layer being sandwiched between the first transducer array and the second transducer array; at least one of the first transducer array and the second transducer array features an acoustic lens; both the first transducer array and the second transducer array comprising an acoustic lens, wherein the curvature of the acoustic lens of the first transducer array and the curvature of the acoustic lens of the second transducer array differ from each other; the plurality of transducer elements of at least one of the first transducer array and the second transducer array are controlled to emit ultrasound waves having a curved wavefront, the plurality of transducer elements of both the first transducer array and the second transducer array are controlled to emit ultrasound waves having a curved wavefront, wherein the curvature of the wavefront emitted via the first transducer array and the curvature of the wavefront emitted via the second transducer array differ from each other; the plurality of transducer elements of at least one of the first transducer array and the second transducer array are disposed in an n*m-matrix or an n*n-matrix, and/or are controlled via a Row-Column-Addressing (RCA) scheme; the first transducer array provides ultrasound images of a higher resolution than the ultrasound images provided by the second transducer array; the first transducer array and the second transducer array share the same wireless connection or cable connection for transmitting data for controlling the first transducer array and the second transducer array an/or for transmitting data describing said three-dimensional ultrasound images; the first transducer array and the second transducer array are controlled to acquire ultrasound images in an alternating manner; and/or the first transducer array and the second transducer array are controlled to acquire ultrasound images at different frequencies (Figs. 1-2 show a wired connection of the probe with the two arrays to the control unit. Paragraphs 0031-32 teach that the controller is connected to the probe for acquiring the images and the performance of data processing. Paragraph 0053 teaches that the probe may be connected to the control unit and provides the user with an interface for operating the vaginal probe as well as a suitable display for visualizing all signals acquired during the procedure).
Regarding claim 16, modified Egorov teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 12, as discussed above.
However, Egorov is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein: the data processing unit is operable to determine the spatial position of the target structure shown in the first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array based on a known absolute spatial position of the reference structure shown in the second three- dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer array.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dual array ultrasound imaging, Guenther teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein: the data processing unit is operable to determine the spatial position of the target structure shown in the first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array based on a known absolute spatial position of the reference structure shown in the second three- dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer array (Paragraphs 0029-30 teaches a data acquired by one or more transducer can be a frame of reference according to a spatial position. This can provide the basis for a common frame of reference by charging the ultrasound data against information about the position and/or orientation of the ultrasound transducers. Physiologic data, position, orientation and/or geometry of the object of interest can be calculated based on the common frame of reference. This information is derivable form the ultrasound data. The data can be over 3D space. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the object of interest can be assessed according to other physiologic or pathologic structures observed by the ultrasound transducers. Paragraph 0142 teaches that the operation of the transducer is according to the target structure. Paragraph 0145 teaches that the target can be subsequently treated. Paragraphs 009293 teach that the transducer can be used according to the absolute coordinates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Egorov with Guenther’s teaching of the assessment according to the known absolute spatial position. This modified apparatus would allow the user to assess and position the probes according to the determined position of the object of interest in real time and allow for further integration with other medical devices (Paragraph 0001 of Guenther). Furthermore, it addresses the need for a real-time detection system for the assessment of objects of interest to thereby reduce possible treatment (Paragraph 0014 of Guenther).
Regarding claim 17, modified Egorov teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 12, as discussed above.
However, Egorov is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein: the data processing unit is operable to determine the spatial position of an anatomical treatment structure of a patient as the target structure shown in the first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array relative to an anatomical landmark structure of the patient as the reference structure shown in the second three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer array.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dual array ultrasound imaging, Guenther teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein: the data processing unit is operable to determine the spatial position of an anatomical treatment structure of a patient as the target structure shown in the first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array relative to an anatomical landmark structure of the patient as the reference structure shown in the second three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer array (Paragraphs 0029-30 teaches a data acquired by one or more transducer can be a frame of reference according to a spatial position. This can provide the basis for a common frame of reference by charging the ultrasound data against information about the position and/or orientation of the ultrasound transducers. Physiologic data, position, orientation and/or geometry of the object of interest can be calculated based on the common frame of reference. This information is derivable form the ultrasound data. The data can be over 3D space. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the object of interest can be assessed according to other physiologic or pathologic structures observed by the ultrasound transducers. Paragraph 0142 teaches that the operation of the transducer is according to the target structure. Paragraph 0145 teaches that the target can be subsequently treated. Paragraphs 009293 teach that the transducer can be used according to the absolute coordinates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Egorov with Guenther’s teaching of the assessment according to an anatomical landmark structure. This modified apparatus would allow the user to assess and position the probes according to the determined position of the object of interest in real time and allow for further integration with other medical devices (Paragraph 0001 of Guenther). Furthermore, it addresses the need for a real-time detection system for the assessment of objects of interest to thereby reduce possible treatment (Paragraph 0014 of Guenther).
Regarding claim 18, modified Egorov teaches the ultrasound imaging system in claim 12, as discussed above.
However, Egorov is silent regarding an ultrasound imaging system, wherein: the data processing unit is operable to determine the spatial position of an anatomical treatment structure of a patient as the target structure shown in the first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array based on a known absolute spatial position of an anatomical landmark structure of the patient as the reference structure shown in the second three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer array.
In an analogous imaging field of endeavor, regarding dual array ultrasound imaging, Guenther teaches an ultrasound imaging system, wherein: the data processing unit is operable to determine the spatial position of an anatomical treatment structure of a patient as the target structure shown in the first three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the first transducer array based on a known absolute spatial position of an anatomical landmark structure of the patient as the reference structure shown in the second three-dimensional ultrasound image acquired via the second transducer array (Paragraphs 0029-30 teaches a data acquired by one or more transducer can be a frame of reference according to a spatial position. This can provide the basis for a common frame of reference by charging the ultrasound data against information about the position and/or orientation of the ultrasound transducers. Physiologic data, position, orientation and/or geometry of the object of interest can be calculated based on the common frame of reference. This information is derivable form the ultrasound data. The data can be over 3D space. Paragraph 0115 teaches that the object of interest can be assessed according to other physiologic or pathologic structures observed by the ultrasound transducers. Paragraph 0142 teaches that the operation of the transducer is according to the target structure. Paragraph 0145 teaches that the target can be subsequently treated. Paragraphs 009293 teach that the transducer can be used according to the absolute coordinates).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Egorov with Guenther’s teaching of the assessment according to the known absolute spatial position of an anatomical landmark. This modified apparatus would allow the user to assess and position the probes according to the determined position of the object of interest in real time and allow for further integration with other medical devices (Paragraph 0001 of Guenther). Furthermore, it addresses the need for a real-time detection system for the assessment of objects of interest to thereby reduce possible treatment (Paragraph 0014 of Guenther).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Ng et al. (PGPUB No. US 2015/0294497): Teaches the assessment of the image of an array according to the image capture of another array with respect to a reference.
Boctor et al. (US Patent No. 7,867,167): Teaches the assessment of the image of an array according to the image capture of another array with respect to a reference.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADIL PARTAP S VIRK whose telephone number is (571)272-8569. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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 on 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.
/ADIL PARTAP S VIRK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798