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 § 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.
Claim 9 is 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 9 recites the limitation "the confidence score" in line 11. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method for generating an ultrasound exam score without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of receiving a temporal sequence of ultrasound image data obtained from an ultrasound exam of a patient, for each of a plurality of different zones of one or both lungs of the patient; identifying using a feature identification algorithm, for each of the plurality of different zones from the temporal sequence of ultrasound image data, one or more features of the lung(s); determining, for each of the identified one or more features, a confidence score; determining a composite score for each of the plurality of different zones by combining the determined confidence scores corresponding to each zone, wherein the composite score for a zone is indicative of either a disease or condition severity for a zone; or a diagnosis for a zone; determining a lunch score by combining the plurality of determined composite scores, wherein the lung score is indicative of either a disease or condition severity for the lung(s); or a diagnosis for the lungs(s); and providing, via a user interface, one or more of the lung score, the composite score for one or more of the plurality of different zones, and the confidence score for one or more of the identified one or more features. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The addition of general-purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, a user interface) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2-7 are dependent upon claim 1 and includes all the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, claims 2-7 recites the same abstract idea of gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps recite additional data gathering or mathematical operations that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than the judicial exception.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method for generating an ultrasound exam score without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of receiving a temporal sequence of ultrasound image data obtained from an ultrasound exam of a patient, for each of a plurality of different zones of one or both lungs of the patient; identifying using a feature identification algorithm, for each of the plurality of different zones from the temporal sequence of ultrasound image data, one or more features of the lung(s); determining, for each of the identified one or more features, a confidence score; determining a lunch score by combining the plurality of determined confidence scores for all zones, wherein the lung score is indicative of either a disease or condition severity for the lung(s); or a diagnosis for the lungs(s); and providing, via a user interface, one or more of the lung score and the confidence score for one or more of the identified one or more features. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The addition of general-purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, a user interface) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a method for generating an ultrasound exam score without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) the steps of receiving a temporal sequence of ultrasound image data obtained from an ultrasound exam of a patient, for each of a plurality of different zones of one or both lungs of the patient; identifying using a feature identification algorithm, for each of the plurality of different zones from the temporal sequence of ultrasound image data, one or more features of the lung(s); determining, for each of the identified one or more features, a size of the identified feature; determining a lunch score by combining the plurality of determined sizes for all zones, wherein the lung score is indicative of either a disease or condition severity for the lung(s); or a diagnosis for the lungs(s); and providing, via a user interface, one or more of the lung score and the confidence score for one or more of the identified one or more features. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, performing well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, and recite the concepts of gathering and evaluating data, and performing mathematical calculations which can be performed as a mental step or on pen and paper. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the steps are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry, recited at a high level of generality amounting to no more than the judicial exception. The addition of general-purpose computer components alone to perform such steps is not sufficient to transform a judicial exception into a patentable invention. The computer components are recited at a high level of generality and perform the basic functions of a computer (in this case, a user interface) that would be needed to apply the abstract idea via a computer. Merely using generic computer components to perform the above identified basic computer functions to practice or apply the judicial exception does not constitute a meaningful limitation that would amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
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) 8-9 and 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ayyat et al. (US 2019/0244356).
Ayyat et al. discloses a method for generating an ultrasound exam score, comprising: receiving a temporal sequence of ultrasound image data obtained from an ultrasound exam of a patient, for each of a plurality of different zones of one or both lungs of the patient (502; [0029]); identifying using a feature identification algorithm, for each of the plurality of different zones from the temporal sequence of ultrasound image data, one or more features of the lung(s) ([0030]); determining, for each of the identified one or more features, a confidence score (504; [0030]); determining a lung score by combining the plurality of determined confidence scores for all zones, wherein the lung score is indicative of either a disease or condition severity for the lung(s); or a diagnosis for the lung(s) (506; [0031]); and providing, via a user interface, one or more of the lung score and the confidence score for one or more of the identified one or more features (508).
With respect to claim 9, Ayyat et al. discloses determining size of the identified feature ([0018]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 and 10-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayyat et al. (US 2019/0244356) in view of Raju et al. (US 2022/0225966).
With respect to claims 1, 3-5, 10, and 12-13, Ayyat et al. discloses a method for generating an ultrasound exam score, comprising: receiving a temporal sequence of ultrasound image data obtained from an ultrasound exam of a patient, for each of a plurality of different zones of one or both lungs of the patient (502; [0029]); identifying using a feature identification algorithm, for each of the plurality of different zones from the temporal sequence of ultrasound image data, one or more features of the lung(s) ([0030]); determining, for each of the identified one or more features, a confidence score (504; [0030]); determining a lung score by combining the plurality of determined confidence scores for all zones, wherein the lung score is indicative of either a disease or condition severity for the lung(s); or a diagnosis for the lung(s) (506; [0031]); and providing, via a user interface, one or more of the lung score and the confidence score for one or more of the identified one or more features (508). Ayyat et al. does not teach determining a score for each of the plurality of different zones. However, Raju et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor subdividing a portion of the anatomy of a patient into a number of zones and imaging data may be used to generate a severity score for each zone based on imaging parameters within the imaging data ([0005]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ayyat et al. with subdividing into a number of zones as taught by Raju et al. in order for the medical professional to monitor each zone ([0005]).
With respect to claims 2 and 11, Ayyat et al. discloses determined size of the identified features ([0018]).
With respect to claims 6 and 14, Ayyat et al. discloses weighting ([0024]).
Claim(s) 7 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayyat et al. (US 2019/0244356) in view of Raju et al. (US 2022/0225966) as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Halmann et al. (US 2017/0086794).
Ayyat et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for receiving user selection via the user interface. However, Halmann et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor receiving user input for parameter selection and previous related examination images and information ([0035]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ayyat et al. with user input selection as taught by Halmann et al. in order for the user to select appropriate image acquisition parameters and retrieve previous images and information ([0035]).
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ayyat et al. (US 2019/0244356) in view of Kaufman et al. (US 2003/0028401).
Ayyat et al. discloses the subject matter substantially as claimed except for receiving and providing a user interface for a request for additional information. However, Kaufman et al. teaches in the same field of endeavor a user interface wherein an operator can request patient information ([0064]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have provided Ayyat et al. with the user interface for requesting information as taught by Kaufman et al. as it is well known to retrieve patient images and information from a database and display the selected information on the user interface display ([0064]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the reference does not teach confidence score or composite score. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. Ayyat et al. discloses a feature confidence score (504; [0030]) and lung score (506; [0031]).
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., value between 0 and 1) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant argues the reference does not teach determining a size of the identified feature. However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The Examiner’s position is that determining a size is not limited to a discrete value and can be interpreted to be an area, e.g. area of the artifact.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 PETER LUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1609. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Anhtuan T Nguyen can be reached at (571)272-4963. 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.
/PETER LUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights