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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 9-15, 17, 18, and 20-23 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to claims 24-26 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 24-26 has been withdrawn.
In view of the amendments, the 112(b) Rejection is withdrawn.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 8, 10, 13-15, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viggen (2020/0037997).
With respect to claims 1 and 13, Viggen teaches of an ultrasound system and method for automatic guidance in ultrasound scans comprising an ultrasound probe 104 configured to perform an ultrasound image acquisition and a processor configured to present the ultrasound image acquisition [0022, 0023]. Viggen teaches of receiving user input representing an input line defining one or more landmark points relative to one or more anatomical structures in the ultrasound image acquisition [0029] or line connecting the selected anatomical landmark points may be overlaid by the caliper measurement module on the 2D image frame [0034]. Viggen therefore teaches of identifying one or more anatomical structures based on the one or more landmark points [0034, 0035]. Viggen teaches of segmenting the one or more anatomical structures of segmenting pixel or group of pixels from the ultrasound images of the organ such as the imaging of the heart and the segmenting out outer layer which may include neurons for a pericardium, posterior wall, septal wall, interventricular septum, aortic valve, left ventricle, etc. [0035] and tracking the anatomical structures as a maneuver is performed by tracking the landmark points where the maneuver causes the anatomical structures to move or the anatomical motion M mode image tracking motion of the anatomical structures [0030, 0036, 0037]. Viggen teaches of computing a distance between two landmark points of the one or more landmark points in a series of ultrasound image frames of the ultrasound image acquisition as the anatomical structures are subject to motion or during the anatomical M-mode generation where line connecting the anatomical landmark points corresponding with the selected measurement on the 2D image frame and measurement corresponding with the distance between the points may be presented at the display [0034, 0035, 0064]. Figures 4 and 5 show the lines between the landmark points with the distance between the points presented by the caliper measurement module at the display system. Viggen teaches of presenting the ultrasound image acquisition with feedback regarding the movement of the one or more anatomical structures wherein the feedback is reflective of direction of movement [0036, 0037]. Viggen teaches of generating an anatomical motion mode image 320 based on a direction of the caliper measurement 356, 360, 370, 380 [0069, 0070, 0074, 0077, fig. 4].
With respect to claims 2 and 14, Viggen therefore teaches of a graphical representation related to the movement of the one or more anatomical structures or caliper measurements 350, 360, 362, 370, 380, 382 presented on the display where the anatomical M-mode generation module 160 may automatically adjust the caliper measurement in the M-mode image in response to any adjustment of the caliper measurement in the 2D frame [0041-0044]. Viggen therefore teaches of the display providing visualization of caliper measurements for user verification by simultaneously presenting in substantially real-time a frame of the multi-frame 2D image having the caliper measurements 350, 360, 370, 380, the measurement display having values corresponding to the caliper measurements 350, 360, 370, 380 M-mode image with overlaid caliper measurements [0046]. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation, Viggen teaches of providing feedback through the use of the caliper on the display as a graphical representation and the distance between the points, as related to the motion of the anatomical structures.
With respect to claims 3 and 15, Viggen teaches of ultrasound image acquisition that would obviously be automatically presented based on the probe placement on the patient with the automatic synchronization of the 2D and M-mode displays [0016, 0037, 0061, 0063].
With respect to claim 4, Viggen teaches of placing the landmark points on the anatomical structures via user input [0029].
With respect to claims 10 and 23, Viggen teaches of putting one or more segmented structures as one or more volume structures and presenting a portion of the one or volume structures or a selected 2D frame in a corresponding plane view [0018, fig. 4, 5].
Viggen does not teach of the all the claimed elements in a single embodiment. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements from the various embodiments to ensure automatic synchronization of the 2D and motion M-mode displays to help a user understand how the data in the 2D and M-mode displays are connected in space and time [0015].
Claim(s) 6, 7, 17, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viggen in view of Sham et al. (2024/0050024). Viggen does not teach of landmark points referring to a hiatal distance and the claimed anatomical structures. In a related field of endeavor Sham et al. teach of identifying anatomical structure such as symphysis pubis [0376, 0377]. Sham et al. teach of determining hiatal distance [0391]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Sham et al. to modify Viggen to effectively extract the minimal hiatal dimensions based on the detected landmarks to minimize the risk for ulcerations and erosions [Sham, 0151, 0394].
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viggen in view of Comaniciu et al. Viggen does not explicitly teach of tracking using an optical flow algorithm. In a related field of endeavor Comaniciu et al. teach of tracking comprising an optical flow algorithm [0025]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Comaniciu et al. to modify Viggen to process cardiac ultrasound images to more effectively assess cardiac functions [Comaniciu, 0008].
Claim(s) 11, 12, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Viggen in view Mongtomery, Jr. (2019/0076112). Viggen does not explicitly teach of comparing a variance of the landmark points and comparing to threshold. In a related field of endeavor Montgomery teaches of comparing the variance of landmark points with respect to ultrasound image frames and triggering an audible, visual, and/or tactile alert or indication that a certain threshold of variance between images has been passed such that it is more likely than not that a shift has occurred in the anatomy [0078]. Montgomery teaches of providing a notification or request user input when the threshold variance is triggered or setting a particular threshold for alerting the medical staff of a change in ultrasound measure which change is indicative an event regarding blood flow [0095]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Montgomery to modify Viggen to allow a medical team to intervene before an operative procedure causes shift in brain tissue that may endanger the patient during the procedure [Montgomery, 0101].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 24-26 are allowed. The combined prior art of record does not teach or render obvious
“an ultrasound system for automatic guidance in ultrasound scans comprising: an ultrasound probe configured to perform an ultrasound image acquisition; and at least one processor configured to: present the ultrasound image acquisition;
receive user input representing one or more landmark points relative to one or more anatomical structures in the ultrasound image acquisition;
identify the one or more anatomical structures based on the one or more landmark points; segment the one or more anatomical structures; present one or more volume structures based on the one or more segmented anatomical structures and present a portion of the one or more volume structures in a corresponding plane view;
track the one or more segmented anatomical structures as a maneuver is performed by tracking the one or more landmark points, wherein the maneuver causes the one or more segmented anatomical structures to move;
present the ultrasound image acquisition with a graphical representation of the movement of the one or more anatomical structures;
determine a minimal hiatal dimension (MHD) in a series of ultrasound image frames of the ultrasound image acquisition; and
present an ultrasound frame with a lowest MHD, an ultrasound frame with a highest MHD, or both upon completion of the maneuver”.
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 BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 EST.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797