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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 9/2/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 remain pending the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 9/2/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot.
Applicant argues on pages 5-6 that a POSITA would understand what enveloping a matrix is and provides a formula. However, it is pointed out that attorneys arguments are not evidence. See MPEP 2145 I. Additionally, an envelope in mathematics is related to curves, specifically a curve that is tangent to every curve in the family at some point, forming the outer boundary of the set of curves which appears unrelated to the matrices described in the application. The Examiner would welcome an affidavit related to this for the sake of compact prosecution.
Applicant argues on pages 6-7 that an x-shape element is a structural element but then refers to it terms of the matrices, which are not structural. Therefore, it is still unclear from the Applicant’s arguments as the specification whether this is a processing requirement or a structural requirement. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on pages 9-11 that a 101 rejection is inappropriate because it improves ultrasound imaging. However, there is no requirement in the claims that ultrasound imaging be performed. Additionally, based on guidance the Examiner has received, even if there were steps related to performing ultrasound imaging, it would only amount to generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. The Examiner recommends adding limitations related to performing some broad form of treatment or diagnosis to overcome the 101 rejection and is willing to discuss this further to advance prosecution.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, the claim sets forth that values "enveloping data of the N eigenvectors matrices to obtain power of the N eigenvectors matrices”. This is understood to be a computer-implemented functional limitation which requires disclosure of the underlying algorithm(s) for obtaining the result in order to comply with the written description requirement. See MPEP § 2161.01(1). While the specification provides literal support for "enveloping data" as in [0006], [0015], (paragraphs as numbered in applicant's pre-grant publication, US20240382182), there is no description as to how to envelop eigenvectors matrices. For this reason, applicant has failed to comply with the written description requirement for this computer-implemented function.
Similarly, original claims may lack written description when the claims define the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the specification does not sufficiently describe how the function is performed or the result is achieved. For software, this can occur when the algorithm or steps/procedure for performing the computer function are not explained at all or are not explained in sufficient detail (simply restating the function recited in the claim is not necessarily sufficient). In other words, the algorithm or steps/procedure taken to perform the function must be described with sufficient detail so that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand how the inventor intended the function to be performed.
It is not enough that one skilled in the art could write a program to achieve the claimed function because the specification must explain how the inventor intends to achieve the claimed function to satisfy the written description requirement. See, e.g., Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782 F.3d 671, 681-683, 114 USPQ2d 1349, 1356, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2015)
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “the N/5 matrices with highest power values are selected […] as a high-power eigenvectors matrix”. This is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention because the specification provides discussion of selecting N/5 matrices with highest power values as a single high-power eigenvectors matrix.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “the N/10 eigenvectors matrices with the lowest power values are selected […] as a low-power eigenvectors matrix”. This is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention because the specification provides discussion of selecting N/10 matrices with lowest power values as a single low-power eigenvectors matrix.
Regarding claim 3, the claim has been amended to recite where the area of connected components less than “a second set value” regarded as a singularity point. This is not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention because the specification provides no reference to a second set value.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “enveloping data of the N eigenvectors matrices to obtain power of the N eigenvectors matrices”. The original Specification, as presented, fails to describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation and therefore fails the enablement requirement set forth under 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP 2164, citing In re Wands, 858 F.2d 731, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
The following factors are to be considered when determining whether there is sufficient evidence to support a determination that a disclosure does not satisfy the enablement requirement and whether any necessary experimentation is “undue”:
(A) the breadth of the claims;
(B) the nature of the invention;
(C) the state of the prior art;
(D) the level of one of ordinary skill;
(E) the level of predictability in the art;
(F) the amount of direction provided by the inventor;
(G) the existence of working examples; and
(H) the quantity of experimentation needed to make or use the invention based on the content of the disclosure (see MPEP 2164.01(a)).
Here, for example:
(A) Breadth of the claims – the claim recites enveloping a matrix which is described as a mathematical function but an envelope of a matrix is a noun.
(B) Nature of the invention – the invention is directed to eigen decomposition to obtain eigenvector matrices which have envelopes but cannot be enveloped.
(C) State of the prior art – Presently, there is no known mathematical function that can be performed on eigenvector matrices called enveloping.
(D) Level of ordinary skill – To date, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that one could not envelope an eigenvector matrix.
(F) Amount of direction provided by the inventor – The original Specification, as presented, provides no direction as to how envelop an eigenvector matrix.
(G) Existence of working examples – The Applicant does not provide any working examples in the original Specification.
In light of the above, it is asserted that the original Specification, as presented, fails to describe the invention in such terms that one skilled in the art can make and use the claimed invention without undue experimentation. Accordingly, Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
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 1-3 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 1-3, The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “enveloping data of the N eigenvectors matrices to obtain power of N eigenvectors matrices”. It is unclear what is meant by the term enveloping data. Enveloping a matrix to obtain power of the matrix does not appear to be a mathematical function that is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art nor is it defined or described in the specification. The envelope of a matrix is a term of art that exists but it is not a mathematical function performed on an eigenvector matrix nor does it result in the power of the matrix. Therefore it is unclear what the limitation “enveloping data of the N eigenvectors matrices to obtain power of N eigenvectors matrices” means. For examination purposes, a reference disclosing eigenvectors matrices will be interpreted as meeting this limitation in the claims as the rest of the claim appears to refer to eigenvector matrices.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “N/5 matrices”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation in the claims. This limitation does not appear to be a term of art that is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art nor is it defined or described in the specification. For examination purposes, a reference disclosing eigenvector matrices will be interpreted as meeting this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “N/10 matrices”. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation in the claims. This limitation does not appear to be a term of art that is known to a person of ordinary skill in the art nor is it defined or described in the specification. For examination purposes, a reference disclosing eigenvector matrices will be interpreted as meeting this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 has been amended to recite “the N/5 matrices with highest power values are selected […] as a high-power eigenvectors matrix” and “the N/10 eigenvectors matrices with the lowest power values are selected […] as a low-power eigenvectors matrix”. It is unclear how a plurality of matrices are selected and becoming a single matrix. Are they combined somehow? Something else? The specification provides no discussion of how this is done. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, a reference disclosing eigenvalue decomposition in some manner will be interpreted as meeting these limitations in the claim.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “determining the point distribution of the ultrasound image in each eigenvectors matrix”. It is unclear what is required by this limitation because it is unclear what points the claim is referring to. What is a “point” in the context of an eigenvector matrix? Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 2, the claim recites “an opening and closing function with an X-shape element. It is unclear what this opening and closing function is since the specification provides no description of these functions or what the x-shape element is. Is this a physical element? Some sort of processing technique? Something else? For examination purposes, a reference disclosing some sort of compensation for noise and
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 is directed an ultrasonic doppler flow imaging method.
Claim 1 is considered to be directed towards an abstract idea because they recite a mental process of using eigen decomposition, determining point distribution, eliminating noise signals, and combining the results of these steps, which is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. That is, nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “mental processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Examples of this type of concept include diagnosing an abnormal condition by performing clinical tests and analyzing the results, In re Grams, 888 F.2d 835, 840, 12 USPQ2d 1824, 1828 (Fed. Cir. 1989); see CyberSource, 654 F.3d at 1372 n.2, 99 USPQ2d at 1695 n.2 (describing the abstract idea in Grams), and collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis, Electric Power Group, LLC v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1351, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016). See MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2).III. A-B.
The judicial exceptions enumerated above (i.e., mathematical formula, mental process, and law of nature) are not integrated into a practical application because no further limitations are included. All of the limitations of claim 1 are directed to the abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. All of the limitations of claim 1 are directed to the abstract idea.
Turning to the dependent claims:
• Claims 2-3 recite additional elements directed towards further details of the abstract idea, specifying calculations and processes to be performed on the data to reduce. These elements are insufficient to integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they too are directed towards the abstract idea. These elements are insufficient to amount to “significantly more” than the abstract idea because they too are directed towards the abstract idea.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 John Li whose telephone number is (313)446-4916. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Thursday; 5:30 AM to 3:30 PM Eastern.
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 at (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.
/JOHN D LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798