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 group I (claims 1-5) in the reply filed on 6/2/26 is acknowledged. Accordingly, claim 6 is withdrawn from consideration.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. 18758776, filed on 06/28/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/28/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the decided appropriate gamma curve” should recite “the appropriate gamma curve” to clarify that it is the same appropriate gamma curve as is recited in claim 1. 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: “texture parameter specifying unit”, “appropriate gamma curve decision unit”, “Doppler image formation unit”, and “training processing unit”, in claims 1-5.
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 § 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 1-5 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. The claims contain numerous antecedence, clarity, and grammatical issues that require thorough and comprehensive editing. In particular, note inconsistencies in the usage of the following terms throughout the claim set: “texture parameter”; “gamma curve”; “power distribution information”; and “combination”.
Regarding claim 1, the following entire limitation lacks grammatical and logical clarity: “a texture parameter specifying unit that inputs target power distribution information to be processed to a learning model trained using, as training data, a combination including power distribution information indicating a power distribution of a Doppler signal obtained by transmitting and receiving an ultrasound wave to and from a subject, and a texture parameter indicating a gamma curve, which indicates a relationship between power of the Doppler signal and a pixel value in a Doppler image and is appropriate for the power distribution information, to predict the texture parameter appropriate for the power distribution information and output the predicted texture parameter in a case in which the power distribution information is input, and that specifies the texture parameter appropriate for the target power distribution information;”. In view of the full Application, the above limitation is being interpreted such that the underlined segments indicate the input-output of the learning model being used after training, and the italicized segments indicate the training of the learned model.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the texture parameter” within the limitation: “and that specifies the texture parameter appropriate for the target power distribution information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. While the claim does describe “a texture parameter” in the claim, this first recitation of “a texture parameter” appears to be in relation to the “power distribution information” (NOT the “target power distribution information”) in the training step. In contrast, “the texture parameter” as claimed above appears to refer to a distinct and new texture parameter that is specified based on inputting the “target power distribution information” (NOT the non-target “power distribution information”) into the learning model. The limitation is being interpreted accordingly. Note that this creates additional issues throughout the claim set that must be addressed regarding which “texture parameter” is being referenced in each dependent claim.
Claims 2-4 are thus rejected for reciting “texture parameter”, in view of the above, because it is unclear which texture parameter is being referenced.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the gamma curve” in “an appropriate gamma curve decision unit that decides an appropriate gamma curve that is the gamma curve appropriate for the target power distribution information”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Similarly to the above rejection, the claim does recite “a gamma curve”, however this appears to be completely distinct from “the gamma curve” recited. The claim describes “a gamma curve” as a part of the training data, whereas “the gamma curve” in “an appropriate gamma curve decision unit that decides an appropriate gamma curve that is the gamma curve appropriate for the target power distribution information” appears to refer to a newly determined gamma curve. The limitation is being interpreted accordingly. Note that this creates additional issues throughout the claim set that must be addressed regarding which “gamma curve” is being referenced in each dependent claim.
Claims 2, 4, and 5 are thus rejected for reciting “gamma curve”, in view of the above, because it is unclear which gamma curve is being referenced.
Claim 3 is rejected as dependent on claim 2.
Claims 1-5 recite one or both of the following indefinite terms: “texture parameter” and “gamma curve”. Both terms have different interpretations in the art, rendering it unclear what particular definition is being relied upon in the claims. Accordingly, the Specification is being relied upon to interpret these terms, and the claims require amendment to clarify what exactly is meant by these terms.
The “texture parameter” is being interpreted in view of Paragraph 45: “In the present embodiment, the texture parameter includes a parameter indicating a ratio of the clutter signal CS (the integrated value of the clutter signal CS in a dynamic range D in FIG. 2 ) included in the dynamic range D defined by the gamma curve GC to the blood flow signal BF (the integrated value of the entire blood flow signal BF in FIG. 2 ), and a parameter (in other words, a blood flow signal cutoff value BFC) indicating a range of the blood flow signal BF to be included in the dynamic range D.”)
The “gamma curve” is being interpreted in view of Paragraphs 8-9 and 65 and Figure 8 as a function that defines a dynamic range between cluster suppression cutoff value and a blood flow signal cutoff value.
Claims 2-5 are further rejected as dependent on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites numerous antecedence and clarity issues, rendering the claim nearly impossible to comprehensively understand. See the following bolded limitations, which require particular attention for revision in addition to other issues: “a training processing unit that uses, as the training data, a combination including the power distribution information and the texture parameter indicating the gamma curve set by a user, to train the learning model to predict the texture parameter appropriate for the user and output the predicted texture parameter in a case in which the power distribution information is input, wherein the texture parameter specifying unit inputs the target power distribution information to the learning model, to specify the texture parameter appropriate for the user, and the appropriate gamma curve decision unit decides the appropriate gamma curve that is appropriate for the user, based on the specified texture parameter.” For example, is “a combination including the power distribution information and the texture parameter indicating the gamma curve set by a user” the same as the “combination” described in claim 1, whereas claim 2 merely specifies that it is set by a user? Overall, the claim is being interpreted such that a user inputs a combination of a ‘power distribution information’ and a ‘texture parameter’ for training the learning model, enabling the learning model to predict a new texture parameter when it receives the ‘target power distribution information’.
Claim 3 is rejected as dependent on claim 2.
Claim 3 recites numerous antecedence and clarity issues, rendering the claim nearly impossible to comprehensively understand. See the following bolded limitations, which require particular attention for revision: “wherein the training processing unit presents a plurality of the combinations including the power distribution information and the texture parameter, which are stored in advance in a memory, to the user, and uses, as the training data, a combination including the power distribution information and the texture parameter, which is selected by the user, to train the learning model.” To the best of the Examiner’s ability, the claim appears to describe that the user selects a combination out of a plurality of combinations that are provided to them, wherein the plurality of combinations are stored in advance in a memory. That user-selected combination is used to train the learning model.
Claim 4 recites numerous antecedence and clarity issues. In particular, see the following bolded limitations, which require particular attention for revision: “wherein the appropriate gamma curve decision unit selects the appropriate gamma curve based on the gamma curve calculated based on the texture parameter specified by the texture parameter specifying unit from among a plurality of types of the gamma curves stored in advance in a memory.” The claim appears to describe that the gamma curve is simultaneously calculated and also selected from among a group, which is unclear. To the best of the Examiner’s ability, the claim appears to describe that there are a plurality of gamma curves stored in advance, and one is selected based on some texture parameter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b), and claim 5 is objected to, but the claims would be allowable if amended to overcome these rejections. Note that this notice of Allowable Subject Matter is issued in view of the claim interpretations outlined in the 35 USC 112(b) rejections above. In particular, see the interpretations of “texture parameter” and “gamma curve” described above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: With respect to claim 1, in addition to other limitations in the claims the Prior Art of Record fails to teach, disclose or render obvious the applicant' s invention as claimed, in particular:
Claim 1 recites: “An ultrasound image processing apparatus comprising:
a texture parameter specifying unit that inputs target power distribution information to be processed to a learning model trained using, as training data, a combination including power distribution information indicating a power distribution of a Doppler signal obtained by transmitting and receiving an ultrasound wave to and from a subject, and a texture parameter indicating a gamma curve, which indicates a relationship between power of the Doppler signal and a pixel value in a Doppler image and is appropriate for the power distribution information, to predict the texture parameter appropriate for the power distribution information and output the predicted texture parameter in a case in which the power distribution information is input, and that specifies the texture parameter appropriate for the target power distribution information;
an appropriate gamma curve decision unit that decides an appropriate gamma curve that is the gamma curve appropriate for the target power distribution information, based on the specified texture parameter; and
a Doppler image formation unit that forms a Doppler image in which the power of the Doppler signal is shown, based on the target power distribution information and the appropriate gamma curve.”
Mo (US6142943A) teaches a Doppler signal generation method that includes determining noise level and peak value amplitude, setting a dynamic range, and applying the dynamic range to a Doppler image for display. Loupas (US20080188746A1) teaches the calculation and use of a gain adjustment based on spectral Doppler in medical ultrasound. Finlayson (TM-Net: A Neural Net Architecture for Tone Mapping) teaches a neural network that refines an input histogram to define a tone map to be used for image enhancement. Mo2 (US20060079778A1) teaches neural network processing for adjustment Doppler signal inputs. Lee (US20120130249A1) teaches color Doppler image generation wherein ultrasound data is acquired and a clutter filtering process is performed in addition to blending using velocity, power, and a calculated qualification curve. However, none of these references disclose the bolded limitations above, in particular, the use of the texture parameters and gamma curves as interpreted under 35 USC 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AARON JOSEPH SORRIN whose telephone number is (703)756-1565. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9am - 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, Sumati Lefkowitz can be reached at (571) 272-3638. 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.
/AARON JOSEPH SORRIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2672
/SUMATI LEFKOWITZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2672
Prosecution Insights