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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding foreign priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Regarding claim interpretation
Examiner notes that no arguments nor amendments with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) claim interpretation are presented. The 112(f) claim interpretations previously set forth are maintained.
Regarding prior art
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection necessitated by amendment. Specifically new teachings are relied upon to teach color filling of an area in which the probe has been derived in a display color different from an area in which the probe has not been derived.
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.
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:
The limitation “probe specifying unit” in claim 1 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “unit”) is modified by functional language (“to specify a position of the probe and specify an inclination angle”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
A review of the specification shows that a processor(s) ([0041]) for performing the functions as disclosed in at least [0084]-[0088] appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
The limitation “image generating unit” in claim 1 meets all 3 prongs of the analysis set forth in MPEP § 2181 (I). The limitation meets prong (A) because “unit” is a generic placeholder for “means”. The limitation meets prong (B) because the generic placeholder (the “unit”) is modified by functional language (“to generate a diagnostic image”). The limitation meets prong (C) because this claim element is not further modified by sufficient structure or material for performing the claimed function.
A review of the specification shows that a processor(s)([0041]) for performing the functions as disclosed in at least [0080] and [0090]-[0097] appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation.
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 § 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 1 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Dhatt (US 20230043371 A1), hereinafter Dhatt in view of Laviola et al. (US 20190261327 A1), hereinafter Laviola.
Regarding claim 1,
Dhatt teaches an ultrasound diagnostic device (at least fig. 1 (100) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0044]) comprising:
a sheet material (at least fig. 1 (120) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0027]) that is capable of being attached to a surface of a living body ([0027] which discloses membrane 120 can be placed on or attached to the body of a patient) and has a two-dimensional code (at least fig. 1 (121) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0035]) drawn on a surface thereof ([0035] which discloses for example, one or more markings 121 in the form of a pattern can be printed in ink (thus drawn) on an outside surface of the membrane 120), the two-dimensional code (121) representing a position within the surface of the sheet material (see fig. 2A);
an ultrasonic transducer (at least fig. 1 (122) and corresponding disclosure in at least [00 [0045]) configured to radiate an ultrasonic wave onto the living body through the sheet material, and receive an ultrasonic wave echo reflected inside the living body (([0015] which discloses probe can include one or more transducers 122 used to transmit and/or receive ultrasound waves to and from the body of the patient to be examined. See also least fig. 2A and [0028] which discloses The material can be selected to minimize and/or reduce disturbance of ultrasound imaging, and/or to permit acceptable ultrasound imaging therethrough, thus the transducer is configured to radiate an ultrasonic wave onto the living body through the sheet material);
a probe (at least fig. 1 (116) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0015]) that is movable on the surface of the living body having the sheet material attached thereto and is provided with the ultrasonic transducer ([0015] which discloses probe can include one or more transducers 122 used to transmit and/or receive ultrasound waves to and from the body of the patient to be examined);
an imaging device (at least fig. 1 (117) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0024]) that is provided to the probe (116) and is capable of imaging the two-dimensional code ([0036] which discloses One or more markings 121 can then be detected by image sensor 117);
an inclination angle sensor (at least fig. 1 (118) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0024] which discloses the inertial sensor can be an inertial measurement (IMU) that includes one or more of an accelerometer, a gyroscope magnetometer, and a compass. Examiner notes that such an IMU including these features is considered an inclination angle sensor in its broadest reasonable interpretation. See also [0037] which discloses in non-limiting embodiments, probe 116 can include an inertial sensor 118. The position, location, and/or orientation of the probe can, in part, be determined based on the use of the data produced by the inertial sensor. The data produced by the inertial sensor, for example, can include movement data related to the motion, speed, acceleration, or direction of probe 116.) provided to the probe (116);
a probe specifying unit (at least fig. 1 (111) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0016]) configured to specify a position of the probe on the surface of the living body based on the two-dimensional code imaged by the imaging device ([0036] which discloses based on the detected one or more markings 121, the ultrasound imaging system can estimate, determine, or derive the position, location, and/or orientation of the probe and [0031] which discloses based on the one or more markings 121 of membrane 120, the ultrasound system can determine a position of probe 116 and [0048] which discloses in one example, the ultrasound system combines data from image sensor 117, from inertial sensor 118, and ultrasound data from probe 116 to estimate the pose of probe 116, such as a six-degree-of-freedom orientation relative to the membrane 120, and therefore also relative to the skin surface, including translation and rotation about x, y, and z axes. In this way, the ultrasound system can give guidance to the user not only to move the probe N, S, E, or W, but also to rotate the probe counterclockwise or clockwise and to “fan” the probe tail up or tail down), and specify an inclination angle of the probe with respect to a vertical direction based on a detection result given by the inclination angle sensor ([0048] which discloses in one example, the ultrasound system combines data from image sensor 117, from inertial sensor 118, and ultrasound data from probe 116 to estimate the pose of probe 116, such as a six-degree-of-freedom orientation relative to the membrane 120, and therefore also relative to the skin surface, including translation and rotation about x, y, and z axes. In this way, the ultrasound system can give guidance to the user not only to move the probe N, S, E, or W, but also to rotate the probe counterclockwise or clockwise and to “fan” the probe tail up or tail down);
and an image generating unit (at least fig. 1 (111) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0045] configured to:
generate a diagnostic image (See at least fig. 3 diagnostic image generated by processor 111) indicating a result of ultrasound diagnostic of the living body based on the ultrasonic wave echo ([0045] which discloses apparatus 110 can then process the image data to output the image and/or indication on display 114. See at least fig. 2A depicting a diagnostic image which is ultimately generated indicating a result of ultrasound diagnostic of the living body based on the ultrasonic wave echo);
generate an area image corresponding to a range in which the sheet material is attached to the living body ([0040] which discloses in other examples, the display can include a map of the membrane. Where the map of the membrane necessarily corresponds with a range in which the sheet material is attached to the living body);
and display an area in the area image in which the position of the probe has been derived based on the two-dimensional code different from an area in which the position of the probe has not been derived ([0040] which discloses the ultrasound system can denote the current position of the probe 116 as an indication on the map of the membrane. The indication for example, can be a dot, diamond, cross, probe icon, or any other marking indicating the current position of the probe. Examiner notes that marking the current position is an area in which the probe has been derived is different from an area in which the position of the probe has not been derived a point at which the current position is not marked).
Examiner notes that displaying a dot, diamond, cross, probe icon, or any other marking would appear to be in a color (i.e. the color of the dot, diamond, etc.) different from a display color of the area in which the position of the probe has not been derived (which does not have the same dot, diamond, etc.), however, this is not made explicitly clear. Therefore, Dhatt fails to explicitly teach wherein the image generating unit is configured to display the area in the area image in which the position nof the probe has been derived by hatching or by color filling in a color different from a display color of an area in which the position of the probe has not been derived.
Laviola, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches wherein an image generating unit is configured to display an area in an area image by hatching or by color filling in a color different from a display color of an area in which the position of the probe has not been derived (see at least fig. 4 and [0056] which discloses in the updated visual representation 404C, a scanned area 410 that has been scanned by the ultrasound probe is depicted as a cross-hatched area. The scanned area 410 may also be indicated by a color change, shading or any other visual indicator to show which areas of the breast have been scanned by the ultrasound probe).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include hatching or color filling as taught by Laviola in order to show which areas have been scanned by the ultrasound probe (Laviola [0056]). Such a modification would provide guidance to a user as to which areas have already been scanned to help prevent duplicate data and allow a user to understand when the ultrasound scan is completed.
Examiner notes that in the modified system the areas that have been scanned as taught by Laviola would be or include an area in which the position of the probe has been derived based on the two-dimensional code accordingly.
Regarding claim 17,
Dhatt further teaches further comprising a storage unit (at least fig. 1 (112) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0015]-[0016]) configured to store in advance diagnostic reference information in which an allowable range of the position of the probe for diagnosing a specific organ in the living body and an allowable range of the inclination angle of the probe for diagnosing the specific organ are associated with each other ([0032] which discloses the indication can be based on one or more predetermined selections made by the user. The selections available to the user can be programmed into the ultrasound imaging system. For example, the one or more selections can relate to the one or more body parts the user intends to image…. For example, a user can turn on the ultrasound imaging system and choose a selection indicating that the user intends to image the liver of a patient. Based on this selection, the indication illustrated on the display can instruct a user on how to position and orient the probe to effectively image the liver of a patient. For instance, the indication can include a map, with a trace indicated by a numbered sequence of indicated locations, as described above. Such information related to the selection which provides an indication to instruct a user on how to position and orient the probe is considered to be diagnostic reference information in which an allowable range of the position of the probe and an allowable range of the inclination of the probe are associated with each other for diagnosing the specific organ which must be stored in advance in order for the indication to be presented upon selection of the body part),
Wherein the probe specifying unit is further configured to output a predetermined alarm in at least one of a case in which a current position of the probe is out of the allowable range of the position of the probe indicated by the diagnostic reference information and a case in which a current inclination angle of the probe is out of the allowable range of the inclination angle of the probe ([0044] which discloses For example, if a user begins imaging the heart of a patient, and ultrasound guidance system 100 receives information that the probe has been moved away from the heart, the system can provide the user with an indication or guidance to return to a proper location for imaging the heart. Such an indication or guidance is considered a predetermined alarm in at least a case in which the current position is out of the allowable range of the position of the probe indicated by the diagnostic reference information (i.e. information related to the heart. See also [0042] which discloses the indication can include guidance information can help the user of the ultrasound imaging system to navigate or move the probe on the skin of the patient or on the membrane. The guidance information can include textual instructions for the user to move the probe in an x, y, or z-plane or direction. For example, the guidance information can instruct the user to move the probe in a north-western direction. The textual instructions can also include a distance measurement associated with the recommended movement. For example, the display can instruct the user to move the probe 0.5 inches to the right in the x-plane or user to move the probe 0.5 inches in the east direction)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt and Laviola, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slayton et al. (US 20020087080 A1), hereinafter Slayton.
Regarding claim 2,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Dhatt further teaches wherein the image generating unit is further configured to: associate a depth scale indicating a depth from the surface of the living body with one side of the diagnostic image corresponding to an irradiation direction of the ultrasonic wave (Examiner notes that the ultrasonic image would necessarily have a depth scale associated therewith indicating a depth from the surface of the living body with one side of the diagnostic image corresponding to an irradiation direction of the ultrasonic wave. In other words, the ultrasonic image would have a depth scale (i.e. the depth of the image corresponds with a scale));
Dhatt fails to explicitly teach wherein the image generating unit is configured to: set at least one of a value of the depth scale and a scale of the diagnostic image based on an inclination angle of the probe
Slayton, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches wherein the image generating unit is configured to set a scale of a diagnostic image based on an inclination angle of the probe ([0060] which discloses with reference to fig. 10, as transducer is obtaining an ultrasonic image, a combined image displaying the position and orientation of transducer fused together with a suitably scaled ultrasonic image of patient 650 is provided and [0052] which discloses thus, as transducer 102 changes the angle of scan or otherwise the orientation with respect to the region of interest, the software within central processing unit 108 can suitably follow these changes in orientation and position. Accordingly, by knowing the orientation and geometry of transducer 102 with respect to the patient, positional and/or orientation information and ultrasonic imaging information can be suitably fused into a combined image. In addition, the respective positional and/or orientation information and ultrasonic imaging information can be suitably scaled by the software algorithm to provide an image similar to a cross-sectional view of transducer and treatment region, such as is illustrated in FIG. 10).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include scaling the diagnostic image as taught by Slayton in order to provide a suitably scaled image so as to provide a cross-sectional view of the patient and treatment region during operation of the transducer (Slayton [0041])
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt and Laviola, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyachi (US 20200214680 A1), hereinafter Miyachi.
Regarding claim 3,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Dhatt further teaches wherein the image generating unit is further configured to generate a position image indicating a current position of the probe based on the position of the probe specified by the probe specifying unit ([0040] which discloses the ultrasound imaging system can render on display 114 an indication of the estimated position of the transducer 122 (and/or the position of probe 116) The ultrasound system can denote the current position of the probe 116 as an indication on the map of the membrane. The indication, for example, can be a dot, diamond, cross, probe icon, or any other marking indicating the current position of the probe).
It is unclear if the image generating unit is further configured to superimpose the position image on the diagnostic image.
Nonetheless, Miyachi, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches wherein an image generating unit is further configured to generate a position image (at least fig. 21 (BM/PM3) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0095]) indicating a current position of a probe based on a position of the probe specified by a probe specifying unit ([0095] which discloses the marking unit 28 can attach the probe mark along with the body mark based on the position of the ultrasound probe 2 detected by the probe detection unit 25), and superimpose the position image on a diagnostic image (at least fig. 21 (U) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include superimposing the position image on the diagnostic image as taught by Miyachi in order to allow a user to readily recognize where the probe is positioned when collecting the ultrasound data. Such a modification would allow a user to readily recognize the position while viewing the image data after the procedure to understand where the image data was taken or such that the user may understand the location during the procedure without having to physically look at the patient and may continue to view the diagnostic image.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt, Laviola, and Slayton, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Miyachi.
Regarding claim 4,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 2 as previously stated. Dhatt further teaches wherein the image generating unit is further configured to generate a position image indicating a current position of the probe based on the position of the probe specified by the probe specifying unit ([0040] which discloses the ultrasound imaging system can render on display 114 an indication of the estimated position of the transducer 122 (and/or the position of probe 116) The ultrasound system can denote the current position of the probe 116 as an indication on the map of the membrane. The indication, for example, can be a dot, diamond, cross, probe icon, or any other marking indicating the current position of the probe).
It is unclear if the image generating unit is further configured to superimpose the position image on the diagnostic image.
Nonetheless, Miyachi, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches wherein an image generating unit is further configured to generate a position image (at least fig. 21 (BM/PM3) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0095]) indicating a current position of a probe based on a position of the probe specified by a probe specifying unit ([0095] which discloses the marking unit 28 can attach the probe mark along with the body mark based on the position of the ultrasound probe 2 detected by the probe detection unit 25), and superimpose the position image on a diagnostic image (at least fig. 21 (U) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0095]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include generating a position image and superimposing the position image on the diagnostic image as taught by Miyachi in order to allow a user to readily recognize where the probe is positioned when collecting the ultrasound data. Such a modification would allow a user to readily recognize the position while viewing the image data after the procedure to understand where the image data was taken or such that the user may understand the location during the procedure without having to physically look at the patient and may continue to view the diagnostic image.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt and Laviola, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kiyose (US 20170027543 A1), hereinafter Kiyose.
Regarding claim 5,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated.
Dhatt further teaches wherein the probe specifying unit is configured to specify an orientation of the probe indicating an angle of the probe about an axis of a direction normal to the surface of a sheet material) based on the two-dimensional code ([0036] which discloses based on the detected one or more markings 121, the ultrasound imaging system can estimate, determine, or derive the position, location, and/or orientation of the probe and [0037] which discloses the rotational orientations of the physical features of the markings 121 can be used by the system to determine an orientation of the probe 116, and the location of the probe 116 can be based on which of the unique markings is detected)
Dhatt fails to explicitly teach wherein the image generating unit is further configured to generate, when the orientation of the probe exceeds a predetermined range, the diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of the sheet material in the diagnostic image.
Kiyose, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasonic imaging, teaches an image generating unit is configured to generate, when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range, a diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of an object in the diagnostic image (See at least figs. 11A-11C and [0119] which discloses here, in the example shown in FIGS. 11A through 11C, the attitude detection sensor 23 and the attitude detection circuit 454 detect the fact that the ultrasonic probe 2 is disposed on the upper surface of the measurement object with the hand part located on the back side, and then output the result to the control device 10. In this case, the image forming unit 142 performs a horizontally flipping process on the image (FIG. 11B) generated based on the ultrasonic received signal. Where such horizontal flipping (i.e. in inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the object in the diagnostic image) is performed when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range (i.e. when the orientation is that shown in 11A which exceeds a predetermined range such as a range including the orientation shown in 7A) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include generating the diagnostic image inverted as taught by Kiyose in order for the image to become eye-friendly for the practitioner based on the attitude of the probe (Kiyose [0152]). Such a modification makes it possible to correct the image formed by the image forming section to the orientation easy for the practitioner to check irrespective of the orientation at the time of arrangement of the ultrasonic probe, and it is possible to assist the efficient operation (Kiyose [0030]).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt, Laviola, and Slayton, as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Kiyose.
Regarding claim 6,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 2 as previously stated.
Dhatt further teaches wherein the probe specifying unit is configured to specify an orientation of the probe indicating an angle of the probe about an axis of a direction normal to the surface of a sheet material) based on the two-dimensional code ([0036] which discloses based on the detected one or more markings 121, the ultrasound imaging system can estimate, determine, or derive the position, location, and/or orientation of the probe and [0037] which discloses the rotational orientations of the physical features of the markings 121 can be used by the system to determine an orientation of the probe 116, and the location of the probe 116 can be based on which of the unique markings is detected)
Dhatt fails to explicitly teach wherein the image generating unit is further configured to generate, when the orientation of the probe exceeds a predetermined range, the diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of the sheet material in the diagnostic image.
Kiyose, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasonic imaging, teaches an image generating unit is configured to generate, when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range, a diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of an object in the diagnostic image (See at least figs. 11A-11C and [0119] which discloses here, in the example shown in FIGS. 11A through 11C, the attitude detection sensor 23 and the attitude detection circuit 454 detect the fact that the ultrasonic probe 2 is disposed on the upper surface of the measurement object with the hand part located on the back side, and then output the result to the control device 10. In this case, the image forming unit 142 performs a horizontally flipping process on the image (FIG. 11B) generated based on the ultrasonic received signal. Where such horizontal flipping (i.e. in inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the object in the diagnostic image) is performed when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range (i.e. when the orientation is that shown in 11A which exceeds a predetermined range such as a range including the orientation shown in 7A) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include generating the diagnostic image inverted as taught by Kiyose in order for the image to become eye-friendly for the practitioner based on the attitude of the probe (Kiyose [0152]). Such a modification makes it possible to correct the image formed by the image forming section to the orientation easy for the practitioner to check irrespective of the orientation at the time of arrangement of the ultrasonic probe, and it is possible to assist the efficient operation (Kiyose [0030]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt, Laviola, and Miyachi, as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Kiyose.
Regarding claim 7,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 3 as previously stated.
Dhatt further teaches wherein the probe specifying unit is configured to specify an orientation of the probe indicating an angle of the probe about an axis of a direction normal to the surface of a sheet material) based on the two-dimensional code ([0036] which discloses based on the detected one or more markings 121, the ultrasound imaging system can estimate, determine, or derive the position, location, and/or orientation of the probe and [0037] which discloses the rotational orientations of the physical features of the markings 121 can be used by the system to determine an orientation of the probe 116, and the location of the probe 116 can be based on which of the unique markings is detected)
Dhatt fails to explicitly teach wherein the image generating unit is further configured to generate, when the orientation of the probe exceeds a predetermined range, the diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of the sheet material in the diagnostic image.
Kiyose, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasonic imaging, teaches an image generating unit is configured to generate, when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range, a diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of an object in the diagnostic image (See at least figs. 11A-11C and [0119] which discloses here, in the example shown in FIGS. 11A through 11C, the attitude detection sensor 23 and the attitude detection circuit 454 detect the fact that the ultrasonic probe 2 is disposed on the upper surface of the measurement object with the hand part located on the back side, and then output the result to the control device 10. In this case, the image forming unit 142 performs a horizontally flipping process on the image (FIG. 11B) generated based on the ultrasonic received signal. Where such horizontal flipping (i.e. in inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the object in the diagnostic image) is performed when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range (i.e. when the orientation is that shown in 11A which exceeds a predetermined range such as a range including the orientation shown in 7A) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include generating the diagnostic image inverted as taught by Kiyose in order for the image to become eye-friendly for the practitioner based on the attitude of the probe (Kiyose [0152]). Such a modification makes it possible to correct the image formed by the image forming section to the orientation easy for the practitioner to check irrespective of the orientation at the time of arrangement of the ultrasonic probe, and it is possible to assist the efficient operation (Kiyose [0030]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt, Laviola, Slayton, and Miyachi, as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Kiyose.
Regarding claim 8,
Dhatt, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 4 as previously stated.
Dhatt further teaches wherein the probe specifying unit is configured to specify an orientation of the probe indicating an angle of the probe about an axis of a direction normal to the surface of a sheet material) based on the two-dimensional code ([0036] which discloses based on the detected one or more markings 121, the ultrasound imaging system can estimate, determine, or derive the position, location, and/or orientation of the probe and [0037] which discloses the rotational orientations of the physical features of the markings 121 can be used by the system to determine an orientation of the probe 116, and the location of the probe 116 can be based on which of the unique markings is detected)
Dhatt fails to explicitly teach wherein the image generating unit is further configured to generate, when the orientation of the probe exceeds a predetermined range, the diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of the sheet material in the diagnostic image.
Kiyose, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasonic imaging, teaches an image generating unit is configured to generate, when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range, a diagnostic image inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the surface of an object in the diagnostic image (See at least figs. 11A-11C and [0119] which discloses here, in the example shown in FIGS. 11A through 11C, the attitude detection sensor 23 and the attitude detection circuit 454 detect the fact that the ultrasonic probe 2 is disposed on the upper surface of the measurement object with the hand part located on the back side, and then output the result to the control device 10. In this case, the image forming unit 142 performs a horizontally flipping process on the image (FIG. 11B) generated based on the ultrasonic received signal. Where such horizontal flipping (i.e. in inverted in a left-and-right direction in a plane direction along the object in the diagnostic image) is performed when the orientation of a probe exceeds a predetermined range (i.e. when the orientation is that shown in 11A which exceeds a predetermined range such as a range including the orientation shown in 7A) .
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include generating the diagnostic image inverted as taught by Kiyose in order for the image to become eye-friendly for the practitioner based on the attitude of the probe (Kiyose [0152]). Such a modification makes it possible to correct the image formed by the image forming section to the orientation easy for the practitioner to check irrespective of the orientation at the time of arrangement of the ultrasonic probe, and it is possible to assist the efficient operation (Kiyose [0030]).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dhatt and Laviola, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arai et al. (US 20090306504 A1), hereinafter Arai.
Regarding claim 18,
Dhatt teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Dhatt further teaches further comprising a magnetic sensor ([0025] which discloses additionally, probe 116 can include any other type of sensor, such as a magnetic sensor or a radiofrequency sensor), however, fails to explicitly teach that the magnetic sensor is an azimuth sensor configured to detect a posture of the probe, and wherein the probe specifying unit is further configured to specify, when an inclination angle of the inclination angle sensor exceeds an upper limit value of a detection range of the inclination angle sensor, the inclination angle of the probe with respect to the vertical direction based on a detection result given by the azimuth sensor.
Nonetheless, Arai, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches further comprising an azimuth sensor configured to detect a posture of a probe, and wherein a probe specifying unit is further configured to specify the inclination angle of the probe with respect to the vertical direction based on a detection result given by the azimuth sensor [0069] which discloses the magnetic position sensor system has a magnetic field generator (not) shown that is attached to a bed or the like on which an object to be examined lies, a magnetic signal detector (magnetic sensor) 56 that is attached to the probe, and a positional data calculating unit 59 that calculates data (hereunder, referred to as ‘positional data’) representing the three-dimensional position or inclination or the like of the probe based on detection signals output from the magnetic sensor 53).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Dhatt to include an azimuth sensor as taught by Arai in order to provide additional positional data regarding the ultrasound probe. Such a modification would further enhance the determination of the position of the probe by providing additional sensors for providing such posture data which may be compared with or combined with the IMU and image sensor data for obtaining a more accurate position/posture of the probe.
Examiner notes that in the modified system the positional data representing the three-dimensional position or inclination or the like of the probe based on the detection result given by the azimuth sensor is specified by the probe specifying unit in any case including when an inclination angle of the inclination angle sensor exceeds an upper limit value of a detection range of the inclination angle sensor, thus functions accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kamiyama (US 20060241431 A1) teaches (in figs. 18A-18B and 19A-19B a scanned region is displayed by a different color by observing the body mark, an operator such as a doctor can determine whether the entire region of the diagnosis target is scanned, and comprehend a non-scanned region, and the like. [0126] and scanned regions are displayed in different colors by using the body mark. Such a display form allows the operator to check an omission of a scanned region [0128])
Shiina (US 20160231284 A1) teaches in at least the abstract an inspection system includes: a sheet material that is attached to a surface of a pipe and has two-dimensional patterns drawn thereon that are arranged on the pipe and indicate positions on the pipe; a reader that is mounted to an ultrasonic probe and reads the two-dimensional patterns; and a calculation unit that acquires position data on the pipe based on the two-dimensional patterns read by the reader. The inspection system associates the position data with a flaw detection result obtained from a detection result based on the ultrasonic probe.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BROOKE L KLEIN whose telephone number is (571)270-5204. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anne Kozak can be reached at 5712700552. 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.
/BROOKE LYN KLEIN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights