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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-12 and 18-19) in the reply filed on 07/02/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 13-17 have been withdrawn.
Claim Objections
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “obtaining the intersection line of the first ultrasound section...” in line 7 should be amended to read –determining the intersection line of the first ultrasound section—to be consistent with claim 1 since claim 1 recite determining the intersection line. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: the claim limitation “obtaining the plane question...” in lines 17 and 22 should be amended to read –determining the plane equation—to be consistent with rest of the claim since claim 9 recite determining plane equation in lines 2-3. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“acquisition module” in claim 12;
“a first determination module” in claim 12; and
“a second determination module” in claim 12.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite an abstract idea as discussed below. This abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application for the reasons discussed below. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for the reasons discussed below.
Step 1 of the 2019 Guidance requires the examiner to determine if the claims are to one of the statutory categories of invention. Applied to the present application, the claims belong to one of the statutory classes of a process or product as a computer implemented method or a computer system/product.
Step 2A of the 2019 Guidance is divided into two Prongs. Prong 1 requires the examiner to determine if the claims recite an abstract idea, and further requires that the abstract idea belong to one of three enumerated groupings: mathematical concepts, mental processes, and certain methods of organizing human activity.
Regarding claim 1, the independent claim is directed to a path determination method. The claim limitations of determining an intersecting line of the first ultrasound section and the second ultrasound section; and determining a puncture travel path according to the intersecting line when receiving a stop command triggered on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. A user can draw the intersecting line and puncture travel path to the intersection line on the first and second ultrasound section. Therefore, the cited limitations above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of obtaining a first ultrasound section and a second ultrasound section is directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional claim element of ultrasound probe does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the probe is not positively recited in the claim and ultrasound probe is known in the art.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 1 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 2, the limitation of obtaining the first ultrasound section collected by a first probe at a first position and obtaining the second ultrasound section collected by a second ultrasound probe at a section position are directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional claim elements of first and second ultrasound probe do not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the probe is not positively recited in the claim and ultrasound probes are known in the art.
Regarding claims 3-6 and 8-10, the claims further recite claim limitations (e.g., determining the intersecting line, determining a plane equation, calculating a transformation matrix, etc.) that are further directed to abstract idea because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper.
Regarding claim 7, the claim limitation of the first ultrasound probe is held by a first mechanical arm, and the second ultrasound probe is held by a second mechanical arm is significantly more than the abstract idea, however, claim is rejected as it depends from rejected claim 6.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recited limitations of “synchronously displaying the intersection line of the first ultrasound section and the second ultrasound section on a first ultrasound image corresponding to the first ultrasound section and a second ultrasound image corresponding to the second ultrasound section” are further directed to an abstract idea because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. The user can draw the intersecting line on the ultrasound image and provide the image as a display.
Regarding claim 12, the independent claim is directed to a path determination device. The claim limitations of a first determination module confiture to determine an intersecting line of the first ultrasound section and the second ultrasound section; and a second determination module configured to determine a puncture travel path according to the intersecting line when receiving a stop command triggered on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section are directed to an abstract because the claim limitations can be performed via mathematical concepts and mental process, with assistance of basic physical aids or with pen and paper. A user can draw the intersecting line and puncture travel path to the intersection line on the first and second ultrasound section. Therefore, the cited limitations above, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, cover performance in the mind.
Furthermore, the claim does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements of acquisition module configured to obtain a first ultrasound section and a second ultrasound section is directed to extra solution activity of gathering data and does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional claim element of ultrasound probe does not include additional elements which are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the probe is not positively recited in the claim and ultrasound probe is known in the art.
In consideration of each of the relevant factors and the claim elements both individually and in combination, claim 12 is directed to an abstract ideas without sufficient integration into a practical application and without significantly more.
Regarding claim 18-19, claims recited general computer components such as processor and memory to execute the abstract ideas and does not add significantly more that the abstract idea because since the memory and processor are merely a generic computer component with the computer being used as a tool for performing the abstract idea.
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 5-10 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.
Regarding claims 5-7, the claim recites the limitation “the probe coordinate system” which is indefinite because it is unclear if this probe coordinate system is referring to the same probe coordinate system, first probe coordinate system or the second probe coordinate system.
Claims 8-10 are rejected as they depend from rejected claims.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11-12 and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2020/0261158; hereinafter Ward), in view of Yarmush et al. (US 2021/0378627; hereinafter Yarmush).
Regarding claim 1, Ward discloses a system and method for catheter based intervention. Ward shows a path determination method (see par. [0013], [0014]), comprising steps of: obtaining a first ultrasound section (see par. [0054], [0091]; fig. 3C) and a second ultrasound section (see par. [0054], [0091]; fig. 3C) collected by at least one ultrasound probe (see par. [0054]); determining an intersecting line of the first image section and the image section ((see par. [0054], [0091]; fig. 3C)) and determining a puncture travel path according to the intersecting line (see par. [0002], [0091]; see 709 in fig. 8).
But, Ward fails to explicitly that a stop command triggered based on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section.
Yarmush discloses an ultrasound-guided alignment and insertion of percutaneous cannulating instrument. Yarmush teaches a stop command triggered based on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section (see par. [0118], [0128], [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a stop command triggered based on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section in the invention of Ward, as taught by Yarmush, to be able to provide an accurate trajectory by adjusting the trajectory which increase the likelihood of success and reduces the likelihood of failure.
Regarding claim 2, Ward and Yarmush disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Yarmush wherein the step of obtaining a first ultrasound section and a second ultrasound section collected by at least one ultrasound probe comprises: obtaining the first ultrasound section collected by a first ultrasound probe at a first position (see par. [0053]) and obtaining the second ultrasound section collected by a second ultrasound probe at a second position (see par. [0056], [0130]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of obtaining the first ultrasound section collected by a first ultrasound probe at a first position and obtaining the second ultrasound section collected by a second ultrasound probe at a second position in the invention of Ward, as taught by Yarmush, to be able to simultaneously capture ultrasound images from multiple of different point of view.
Regarding claim 3, Ward and Yarmush disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Ward shows determining a plane equation corresponding to the first ultrasound section and a plane equation corresponding to the second ultrasound section in a same probe coordinate system (see fig. 3C, 6-8 and 13; par. [0039], [0084]); and obtaining the intersecting line of the first ultrasound section and the second ultrasound section based on the plane equation corresponding to the first ultrasound section and the plane equation corresponding to the second ultrasound section (see fig. 3C, 6-8 and 13; par. [0039], [0084], [0091]).
Regarding claim 11, Ward and Yarmush disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Ward shows synchronously displaying the intersecting line of the first section and the second section on a first ultrasound image corresponding to the first ultrasound section (see fig. 3C) and a second ultrasound image corresponding to the second ultrasound section (see fig. 3C).
Regarding claim 12, Ward discloses a system and method for catheter based intervention. Ward shows a path determination device (see par. [0013], [0014]), comprising: an acquisition module configured to obtain a first ultrasound section (see par. [0054], [0091]; fig. 3C) and a second ultrasound section (see par. [0054], [0091]; fig. 3C) collected by at least one ultrasound probe (see par. [0054]); a first determination module configured to determine an intersecting line of the first image section and the image section ((see par. [0054], [0091]; fig. 3C)) and a second determination module configured to determine a puncture travel path according to the intersecting line (see par. [0002], [0091]; see 709 in fig. 8).
But, Ward fails to explicitly that a stop command triggered based on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section.
Yarmush discloses an ultrasound-guided alignment and insertion of percutaneous cannulating instrument. Yarmush teaches a stop command triggered based on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section (see par. [0118], [0128], [0129]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a stop command triggered based on the first ultrasound section and/or the second ultrasound section in the invention of Ward, as taught by Yarmush, to be able to provide an accurate trajectory by adjusting the trajectory which increase the likelihood of success and reduces the likelihood of failure.
Regarding claims 18-19, Ward and Yarmush disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Ward shows electronic apparatus comprising a memory (see fig. 1; par. [0019])) and a processor (see par. [0019]), wherein the memory stores executable program codes (see par. [0018], [0190]), and where in the processor is coupled with the memory and configured to call the executable program codes stored in the memory, and execute a path determination method according to claim 1 (see par. [0018], [0190]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ward et al. (US 2020/0261158; hereinafter Ward), in view of Yarmush et al. (US 2021/0378627; hereinafter Yarmush), in view of Guenther et al. (US 2011/0190629; hereinafter Guenther).
Regarding claim 4, Ward and Yarmush disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Ward shows wherein the same probe coordinate system is a first probe coordinate system or a second probe coordinate system (see par. [0039], [0084]), But fails to explicitly state that the first probe coordinate system being established based on the first probe coordinate system, and the second probe coordinate system being established based on the second probe coordinate system.
Guenther discloses a 3D motion detection and correction by object tracking in ultrasound images. Guenther teaches first probe coordinate system being established based on the first probe coordinate system (see par. [0081]), and the second probe coordinate system being established based on the second probe coordinate system (see par. [0081]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed inventio, to have utilized the teaching of first probe coordinate system being established based on the first probe coordinate system, and the second probe coordinate system being established based on the second probe coordinate system in the invention of Ward and Yarmush, as taught by Guenther, to be able to continuously determine the localization and viewing direction of each ultrasound probe to 3D motion detection.
Regarding claim 5, Ward, Yarmush and Guenther disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Ward shows determining the plane equation corresponding to the first ultrasound section and the plane equation corresponding to the second ultrasound section in the same probe coordinate system according to a normal vector of the first ultrasound section, a normal vector of the second ultrasound section (see fig. 3C, 6-8 and 13; par. [0039], [0084], [0091]), but fails to explicitly state calculating a transformation matrix from a mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system according to a transformation relationship between coordinate systems; calculating a transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and the second probe coordinate system according to the transformation matrix from the mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system; and determining the plane equation corresponding to the transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and second probe coordinate system.
Yarmush teaches a transformation matrix from a mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system according to a transformation relationship between coordinate systems (see par. [0072], [0073]; fig. 3 and 10A). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of a transformation matrix from a mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system according to a transformation relationship between coordinate systems in the invention of Ward, as taught by Yarmush, to be able to provide an accurate trajectory by incorporating the coordinates of the ultrasound probe and mechanical arm into common fixed coordinate system.
But, Ward and Yarmush fail to explicitly state calculating a transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and the second probe coordinate system according to the transformation matrix from mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system; and determining the plane equation corresponding to the transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and second probe coordinate system.
Guenther teaches calculating a transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and the second probe coordinate system according to the transformation matrix from the mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system (see par. [0087], [0103], [0110], [0111], [0121]); and determining the plane equation corresponding to the transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and second probe coordinate system (see par. [0087], [0103], [0110], [0111], [0121]; fig. 2a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed inventio, to have utilized the teaching of a transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and the second probe coordinate system according to the transformation matrix from the mechanical coordinate system to the probe coordinate system and determining the plane equation corresponding to the transformation matrix between the first probe coordinate system and second probe coordinate system in the invention of Ward and Yarmush, as taught by Guenther, to be able to continuously determine the localization and viewing direction of each ultrasound probe to 3D motion detection.
Regarding claim 6, Ward, Yarmush and Guenther disclose the invention substantially as described in the 103 rejection above, furthermore, Yarmush teaches wherein the transformation relationship between coordinate systems comprises a transformation matrix from the mechanical coordinate system to a static coordinate system (see par. [0055], [0069], [0070], [0074], [0077], [0088], [0093], [0095], [0100]; fig. 3, 5 and 10a), a transformation matrix from the static coordinate system to a dynamic coordinate system, and a transformation matrix from the dynamic coordinate system to the probe coordinate system (see par. [0055], [0069], [0070], [0074], [0077], [0088], [0093], [0095], [0100]; fig. 3, 5 and 10a), and wherein the static coordinate system and the dynamic coordinate system are established according to a mechanical arm (see par. [0055], [0069], [0070], [0074], [0077], [0088], [0093], [0095], [0100]; fig. 3, 5 and 10a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of wherein the transformation relationship between coordinate systems comprises a transformation matrix from the mechanical coordinate system to a static coordinate system, a transformation matrix from the static coordinate system to a dynamic coordinate system, and a transformation matrix from the dynamic coordinate system to the probe coordinate system, and wherein the static coordinate system and the dynamic coordinate system are established according to a mechanical arm in the invention of Ward, as taught by Yarmush, to be able to provide an accurate trajectory by incorporating the coordinates of the ultrasound probe and mechanical arm into common fixed coordinate system.
Allowable Subject Matter
As best understood, claims 7-10 are free of art. However, they are also subject to rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112. Given the indefiniteness of the claims, lack of prior art is not an admittance of allowability.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm.
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 M 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights