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 7/13/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 7/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive or are moot.
Applicant argues on page 9 that “probability of whether the measurement item candidate is measurable” is an index indicating a degree to which an ultrasound image is suitable for measuring a specific measurement item. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The specification does not discuss this definition anywhere nor is this a term of art. The terms degree, suitability, and index do not even appear in the specification and the definition of the term probability does not include this definition set forth by the Applicant. The Examiner reminds that Applicant that attorney arguments are not evidence. See MPEP 2145.I. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 10 that their amendments have addressed the 112b concerns related to claim 12. The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Some 112b issues remain unaddressed by the amendments as seen below. Accordingly, this argument is not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 11 that the previous rejection fails to address the newly added limitations to the claims related to performing a measurement or switching to manual mode. This argument is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment which relies on newly cited portions of Ebata to disclose these limitations in the claims. Accordingly, this argument is moot.
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:
Measurer 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.
A review of the published specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure describe in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Measurer – defined as a control unit in paragraph 44 of the published specification
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 12 is 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 12, claim 12 has been amended to recite” which is only inaccurately measurable”. There does not appear to be support for this limitation in the claims. The specification provides support for a measurer that makes the measurement when it has been estimated that the measurement item having been designated is unmeasurable [0107], not when is only inaccurately measurable.
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 4-5, 16-17, and 19-20 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 claim 4, the claim sets forth “a probability of whether the measurement item candidate is measurable”. It is unclear what the Applicant intended this limitation to encompass in view of the specification. The specification discusses, for example, something having a 1% chance of being measurable, what does this mean? Isn’t something measurable or not measurable? Is this a reliability score? A matching score? A confidence score? Something else? Paragraph 66 of the published specification discusses probability of a label being classified but never defines what is a label. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, a reference discussing some sort of reliability, confidence, or matching score will be interpreted as meeting this limitation in the claim.
Regarding claim 12, the claim discusses the possibility of a measurement item being measurable but inestimable. This appears to contradict the rest of the claim limitations since the apparatus first estimates whether a measurement item candidate is measurable or unmeasurable. How can an apparatus measure something if it cannot estimate that it is measurable? By measuring it, hasn’t it determined that it is in fact estimable since performing the measurement means and estimate of measurability has been performed? Clarification is required.
Regarding claim 12, claim 12 recites the limitation “the measurement item”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes, this will be interpreted as referring to the previously set forth measurement item candidate.
Regarding claim 16, the claim sets forth “a probability of whether the measurement item having been designated is measurable”. It is unclear the Applicant intended this limitation to encompass in view of the specification. The specification discusses, for example, something having a 1% chance of being measurable, what does this mean? Isn’t something measurable or not measurable? Is this a reliability score? A matching score? A confidence score? Something else? Paragraph 66 of the published specification discusses probability of a label being classified but never defines what is a label. Clarification is required. For examination purposes, a reference discussing some sort of reliability, confidence, or matching score will be interpreted as meeting this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4-6, 8-13, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Ebata (US20200129160).
Regarding claims 1, 13, and 19-20, Ebata discloses in Figures 1-8 an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, on-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing an ultrasound diagnostic program, and method (Ebata, Para 2; “The present invention relates to an acoustic wave diagnostic apparatus and a control method of an acoustic wave diagnostic apparatus and in particular, to an acoustic wave diagnostic apparatus and a control method of an acoustic wave diagnostic apparatus for measuring a part on an acoustic wave image.”) (Ebata, Para 55; “The storage unit 17 stores an operation program and the like of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1, and recording media, such as a hard disc drive (HDD), a solid state drive (SSD), a flexible disc (FD), a magneto-optical disc (MO), a magnetic tape (MT), a random access memory (RAM), a compact disc (CD), a digital versatile disc (DVD), a secure digital card (SD card), and a universal serial bus memory (USB memory), or a server can be used”), comprising:
an ultrasound probe (ultrasound probe 21) (Ebata, Para 36; “An ultrasound probe 21 is configured by the transducer array 2, the transmission unit 3, and the reception unit 4”) that transmits and receives ultrasound to and from a subject (Ebata, Para 37; “, each of the elements transmits an ultrasound wave and receives a reflected wave from a subject and outputs a reception signal. For example, each element is formed by using a transducer in which electrodes are formed at both ends of a piezoelectric body formed of piezoelectric ceramic represented by lead zirconate titanate (PZT), a polymer piezoelectric element represented by poly vinylidene di fluoride (PVDF), piezoelectric single crystal represented by lead magnesium niobate-lead titanate (PMN-PT), or the like”);
a display (display unit 8) (Ebata, Para 34; “FIG. 1 shows the configuration of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 according to a first embodiment of the present invention. As shown in FIG. 1, the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 comprises […] a display unit 8”); and
at least one hardware processor (processer 22), wherein the at least one hardware processor
generates ultrasound image data based on a reception signal obtained from an observation area (Ebata, Para 40; “As shown in FIG. 2, the image generation unit 6 of the processor 22 has a configuration in which a signal processing unit 18, a digital scan converter (DSC) 19, and an image processing unit 20 are connected in series to each other. Based on a reception delay pattern selected according to the control signal from the device control unit 12, the signal processing unit 18 performs reception focusing processing in which delays are given to respective pieces of element data according to the set sound speed and addition (phasing addition) is performed. Through the reception focusing processing, a sound ray signal with narrowed focus of the ultrasound echo is generated. The signal processing unit 18 generates a B mode image signal, which is tomographic image information regarding tissues inside the subject, by correcting the attenuation of the generated sound ray signal due to the propagation distance according to the depth of the reflection position of the ultrasound wave and then performing envelope detection processing. The B mode image signal generated as described above is output to the DSC 19.”),
designates a measurement item (Ebata, Para 50; “the measurement unit 9 calculates a measurement candidate based on the calculation standard stored in advance in the calculation standard storage unit 10.”) (Ebata, Para 49; “the measurement unit 9 of the processor 22 detects the measurement target based on the received position and the detection measurement algorithm set by the detection measurement algorithm setting unit 11”),
estimates whether the measurement item having been designated is measurable, and causes the display to display information on whether the measurement item having been designated is measurable and to display the measurement item candidate (Ebata, Para 74; “In a case where it is determined that only one measurement line has been determined as a candidate in step S5, the process proceeds to step S9. In step S9, the measurement unit 9 transmits a command to the display control unit 7 so that the determined measurement candidate is displayed on the display unit 8.”) (Ebata, Para 75; "In a case where it is determined that there is no measurement line determined as a candidate in step S5, the process proceeds to step S10. In step S10, an error dialog indicating that there is no measurement line as a candidate is displayed on the display unit 8, and the measurement operation in the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 ends.”) (Ebata, Para 72; “Thus, in a case where a plurality of measurement candidates are displayed on the display unit 8, one of the plurality of measurement candidates is designated by the user through the operation unit 16 in step S7. In a case where one measurement candidate is designated by the user through the operation unit 16, the measurement candidate designation receiving unit 15 receives this designation result.”);
wherein in a case where the measurement item candidate is estimated to be
measurable, the measurement item candidate is measured (Ebata, Para 74; “a case where it is determined that only one measurement line has been determined as a candidate in step S5, the process proceeds to step S9. In step S9, the measurement unit 9 transmits a command to the display control unit 7 so that the determined measurement candidate is displayed on the display unit 8. Accordingly, in a case where the measurement candidate is displayed on the display unit 8 so as to be superimposed on the ultrasound image, the process proceeds to step S8 in which the measurement candidate displayed on the display unit 8 is confirmed as the measurement result, and the measurement operation in the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 ends”) (Ebata, Para 69; “For example, in a case where the measurement line is a line segment whose end points are disposed at the edge of the measurement target, the length of each measurement line determined as a candidate is measured.”); and
in a case where the measurement item candidate is estimate to be unmeasurable, the at least one hardware processor switches the apparatus to a manual mode (Ebata, Para 105-106; “In a case where it is determined that no measurement line has been calculated in step S5, the process proceeds to step S10 to display an error dialog on the display unit 8, and the process proceeds to step S14. In step S14, the user can manually set a measurement line on the ultrasound image through the operation unit 16.”).
Regarding claims 4 and 16, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses wherein the at least one hardware processor estimates a probability of whether the measurement item candidate is measurable, by using the ultrasound image data as input data (Ebata, Figure 3) (Ebata, Para 81; “In step S4, a plurality of measurement targets may be detected in the ultrasound image.”) (Ebata, Para 79; “Although the reliability of each line segment is calculated based on the edge likeness of the ultrasound image at the end point of the line segment used for measurement of the measurement target in step S4,”) (Ebata, Para 82; “For example, in a case where the gallbladder size is designated as a measurement item in step S1 and a plurality of measurement targets are detected in step S4, the measurement unit 9 calculates a similarity with respect to the pattern data of the gallbladder, which is stored in advance, as the reliability of the measurement target by performing image recognition such as template matching for each measurement target.”).
Regarding claims 5 and 17, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claims 4 and 16 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses a plurality of measurement item candidates, wherein: the display displays one or the plurality of measurement item candidates having the probability equal to or greater than a predetermined probability or a predetermined number of the plurality of the measurement item candidates in descending order of the probability, or a predetermined number of the plurality of the measurement item candidates in descending order of the probability, the plurality of measurement item candidates having the probability equal to or greater than a predetermined probability (Ebata, Para 68; “Then, the measurement unit 9 determines measurement line candidates suitable for measurement based on the calculated reliability and the calculation standard stored in the calculation standard storage unit 10. As a method for determining measurement line candidates, for example, a number of measurement lines determined in descending order of reliability can be set as candidates, a measurement line whose reliability is equal to or higher than a threshold value can be set as a candidate, a measurement line having reliability equal to or greater than the product of the highest reliability and a defined percentage can be set as a candidate, and a combination of these methods can be adopted.”) (Ebata, Para 48; “For example, for the algorithm for detecting the measurement target, there is a method in which typical pattern data is stored in advance as a template, a pattern data similarity is calculated while searching for an image with a template, and it is considered that a measurement target is present in a place where the similarity is equal to or greater than a threshold value and is the maximum.”) (Ebata, Para 64-65; "Then, the measurement unit 9 sets a measurement line to be used for measurement of the detected measurement target, and calculates the reliability of the recognition result based on image processing for the measurement line. In this case, the measurement unit 9 calculates the reliability using the reliability calculation standard stored in the calculation standard storage unit 10. For example, in the case of measuring the length of the gallbladder on the ultrasound image, the measurement unit 9 extracts a plurality of line segments whose end points are disposed on the boundary surrounding the gallbladder region on the ultrasound image, that is, the edge of the gallbladder, and calculates the reliability based on the edge likeness of the ultrasound image at the end point for each line segment").
Regarding claims 6 and 18, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claims 4 and 16 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses wherein the ultrasound image data is data on at least one of a B-mode image, a Doppler image, an M-mode image, and/or an elastography image, and the Doppler image includes a color Doppler image, a pulse Doppler image, a continuous wave Doppler image, and a tissue Doppler image (Ebata, Para 40-41; “The signal processing unit 18 generates a B mode image signal, which is tomographic image information regarding tissues inside the subject, by correcting the attenuation of the generated sound ray signal due to the propagation distance according to the depth of the reflection position of the ultrasound wave and then performing envelope detection processing. The B mode image signal generated as described above is output to the DSC 19. The DSC 19 raster-converts the B mode image signal into an image signal according to the normal television signal scanning method.”).
Regarding claim 8, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses a control panel that includes a key for selecting the measurement item candidate displayed at the display (Ebata, Para 72; “Thus, in a case where a plurality of measurement candidates are displayed on the display unit 8, one of the plurality of measurement candidates is designated by the user through the operation unit 16 in step S7. In a case where one measurement candidate is designated by the user through the operation unit 16, the measurement candidate designation receiving unit 15 receives this designation result.”) (Ebata, Para 42; “The operation unit 16 of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 is for the user to perform an input operation, and can be configured to comprise a keyboard, a mouse, a track pad, a touch panel, and the like.”).
Regarding claim 9, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses wherein the at least one hardware processor includes a learned model using a neural network (Ebata, Para 48; “For example, for the algorithm for detecting the measurement target, there is a method in which typical pattern data is stored in advance as a template, a pattern data similarity is calculated while searching for an image with a template, and it is considered that a measurement target is present in a place where the similarity is equal to or greater than a threshold value and is the maximum. For the calculation of the similarity, in addition to simple template matching, for example, a machine learning method described in Csurka et al.: Visual Categorization with Bags of Keypoints, Proc. of ECCV Workshop on Statistical Learning in Computer Vision, pp. 59-74 (2004) or a general image recognition method using deep learning described in Krizhevsk et al.: ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pp. 1106-1114 (2012) can be used.”).
Regarding claim 10, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses wherein the learned model is a model learned by associating an ultrasound image with the measurement item candidate (Ebata, Para 48; “For example, for the algorithm for detecting the measurement target, there is a method in which typical pattern data is stored in advance as a template, a pattern data similarity is calculated while searching for an image with a template, and it is considered that a measurement target is present in a place where the similarity is equal to or greater than a threshold value and is the maximum. For the calculation of the similarity, in addition to simple template matching, for example, a machine learning method described in Csurka et al.: Visual Categorization with Bags of Keypoints, Proc. of ECCV Workshop on Statistical Learning in Computer Vision, pp. 59-74 (2004) or a general image recognition method using deep learning described in Krizhevsk et al.: ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 25, pp. 1106-1114 (2012) can be used.”).
Regarding claim 11, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses wherein in a case where the at least one hardware processor is incapable of estimating the measurement item candidate, which is measurable, or is capable of estimating only the measurement item candidate, which is unmeasurable, the at least one hardware processor causes unmeasurability to be displayed or causes displaying that an ultrasound image is inappropriate for measurement (Ebata, Para 75; “In a case where it is determined that there is no measurement line determined as a candidate in step S5, the process proceeds to step S10. In step S10, an error dialog indicating that there is no measurement line as a candidate is displayed on the display unit 8, and the measurement operation in the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 ends.”).
Regarding claim 12, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses a measurer that measures the measurement item in the observation area even in a case where the measurement item candidate, which is measurable, is inestimable or even in a case where only the measurement item candidate, which is only inaccurately measurable, is estimable (Ebata, Para 84; “In a case where measurement lines and measurement values are displayed as a plurality of measurement candidates in step S6, the measurement unit 9 may display the measurement values arranged in descending order of reliability from the measurement value of the measurement line with high reliability. By displaying a plurality of measurement values in this manner, the user can easily select a measurement line with high reliability.”) (Ebata, Para 82; “For example, in a case where the gallbladder size is designated as a measurement item in step S1 and a plurality of measurement targets are detected in step S4, the measurement unit 9 calculates a similarity with respect to the pattern data of the gallbladder, which is stored in advance, as the reliability of the measurement target by performing image recognition such as template matching for each measurement target. In addition, the measurement unit 9 may calculate the reliability of a plurality of measurement lines based on the edge likeness in the ultrasound image at the end points of the line segments, which are measurement lines, and calculate the sum or product of the reliability of the measurement lines and the reliability of the measurement target, on which the measurement lines are superimposed, as a composite reliability for each measurement line.”).
Ebata is interpreted as meeting the limitations in the claim as best understood by the Examiner in view of the clarity deficiencies outlined above.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 2-3, 7, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ebata and Choi (US20180330518).
Regarding claims 2 and 14, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as discussed above.
Ebata does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the display displays the measurement item candidate in real time.
In an analogous ultrasound target measurement system field of endeavor Choi discloses wherein a display displays a measurement item candidate in real time (Choi, Para 69-71; “processing unit 230 may apply a look-up table to the probability mapping information to identify likely portion of the target organ of interest and display the output via display 122. Referring back to block 620, in some implementations, probability mapping unit 230 may display information as it is generated in real time. […] FIG. 10 illustrates three B- mode images 1010, 1012 and 1014 and corresponding P- mode images 1020, 1022 and 1024. In other implementations, all 12 B-mode images and 12 corresponding P-mode images may be displayed. […] the volume of the target organ may also be provided to the user, along with real time probability mode images”) (Choi, Para 73-74; “For example, the processing described herein may be used to identify and display a prostate gland, a kidney, a uterus, ovaries, an aorta, a heart, a blood vessel, amniotic fluid, a fetus etc., as well as particular features associated with these targets, such as volume and/or size-related measurements. […] additional size-related measurements may be generated. For example, length, height, width, depth, diameter, area, etc., of an organ or region of interest may be calculated. As an example, for a scan of an aorta, measuring the diameter of the aorta may be important in trying to identify an anomaly, such as an aneurysm. For a prostate scan, measurement of the width and height of the prostate may be needed. In these cases, measurements such as length, height, width, depth, diameter, area, etc., may be generated/estimated using the machine learning processing described above.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ebata wherein the display displays the measurement item candidate in real time as taught by Choi in order to allow a user to make use of the information immediately as needed for diagnosis and treatment.
Regarding claims 3 and 15, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claims 1 and 13 as discussed above.
Ebata does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein: the at least one hardware processor generates the ultrasound image data in real time, and estimates, with respect to the ultrasound image data generated in the real time, whether the measurement item having been designated is measurable, in real time.
In an analogous ultrasound target measurement system field of endeavor Choi discloses generating an ultrasound image data in real time, and performing an estimation estimating, with respect to the ultrasound image data in real time (Choi, Para 69-71; “processing unit 230 may apply a look-up table to the probability mapping information to identify likely portion of the target organ of interest and display the output via display 122. Referring back to block 620, in some implementations, probability mapping unit 230 may display information as it is generated in real time. […] FIG. 10 illustrates three B- mode images 1010, 1012 and 1014 and corresponding P- mode images 1020, 1022 and 1024. In other implementations, all 12 B-mode images and 12 corresponding P-mode images may be displayed. […] the volume of the target organ may also be provided to the user, along with real time probability mode images”) (Choi, Para 73-74; “For example, the processing described herein may be used to identify and display a prostate gland, a kidney, a uterus, ovaries, an aorta, a heart, a blood vessel, amniotic fluid, a fetus etc., as well as particular features associated with these targets, such as volume and/or size-related measurements. […] additional size-related measurements may be generated. For example, length, height, width, depth, diameter, area, etc., of an organ or region of interest may be calculated. As an example, for a scan of an aorta, measuring the diameter of the aorta may be important in trying to identify an anomaly, such as an aneurysm. For a prostate scan, measurement of the width and height of the prostate may be needed. In these cases, measurements such as length, height, width, depth, diameter, area, etc., may be generated/estimated using the machine learning processing described above.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ebata wherein: the at least one hardware processor generates the ultrasound image data in real time, and estimates, with respect to the ultrasound image data generated in the real time, whether the measurement item having been designated is measurable, in real time as taught by Choi in order to allow a user to make use of the information immediately as needed for diagnosis and treatment.
Regarding claim 7, Ebata discloses all of the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Ebata further discloses detecting a touch input for selecting the measurement item candidate having been displayed (Ebata, Para 72; “Thus, in a case where a plurality of measurement candidates are displayed on the display unit 8, one of the plurality of measurement candidates is designated by the user through the operation unit 16 in step S7. In a case where one measurement candidate is designated by the user through the operation unit 16, the measurement candidate designation receiving unit 15 receives this designation result.”) (Ebata, Para 42; “The operation unit 16 of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 is for the user to perform an input operation, and can be configured to comprise a keyboard, a mouse, a track pad, a touch panel, and the like.”).
Ebata does not clearly and explicitly disclose wherein the display includes a touch screen and using the touch screen for input.
In an analogous ultrasound target measurement system field of endeavor Choi discloses includes a touch screen and using the touch screen for input (Choi, Para 54; “Input device 540 may include a mechanism that permits a user to input information to device 500, such as a keyboard, a keypad, a mouse, a pen, a microphone, a touch screen, voice recognition and/or biometric mechanisms, etc. Output device 550 may include a mechanism that outputs information to the user, including a display (e.g., a liquid crystal display (LCD)), a printer, a speaker, etc. In some implementations, a touch screen display may act as both an input device and an output device.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ebata wherein the display includes a touch screen and using the touch screen for input as taught by Choi in order to use a known reliable, relatively cheap, and intuitive input and display device.
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
Prosecution Insights