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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For example, Applicant argues “the amendment further adds the step of obtaining a standard cross-sectional image, separate and distinct from the candidate standard cross-sectional image, that includes at least one anatomical landmark”. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “obtaining a standard cross-sectional image, separate and distinct from the candidate standard cross-sectional image” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that there is no obtaining of a standard cross-sectional image of the claims let alone obtaining a standard cross-sectional image, separate and distinct from the candidate standard cross-sectional image, that includes at least one anatomical landmark. Specifically, the claims broadly recite updating the candidate standard cross-sectional image on the first GUI view to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image. Such a limitation “to correspond” is directed to intended use, where it is noted that the updating of the candidate image must merely be capable of being used to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image. Furthermore, correspondence to the standard cross-sectional image does not require obtaining of the standard cross-sectional image, but rather requires a mere correspondence to the standard cross-sectional image where correspondence is broad and reads on any relationship between the candidate standard cross-sectional image and a standard cross-sectional image. Finally, standard is broadly recited without any reference in the claims as to the nature of the cross-section or updated candidate standard cross-section which is to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image and displayed as the standard cross-sectional image. Applicant’s specification describes that the standard cross-section includes at least one anatomical landmark in [00142] and in [00144] that the standard cross-sectional image may include a cross-section required to diagnose the object’s condition or disease among ultrasound images. Examiner notes that updating the images (including the candidate standard cross-sectional image Lee discloses that the 3D object is easily detected and in [0113] Lee discloses that the controller 113 of the 3D ultrasound apparatus described above, the mid sagittal plane is semi-automatically detected, and thus the object may be easily and accurately diagnosed and in [0008] that Therefore, in order to easily diagnose a Down's syndrome fetus, it is required to more easily and precisely inspect the thickness of the fetus' NT or the angle between the fetus' maxilla and nasal bone. It is therefore noted that the updating of the candidate standard cross-sectional image is considered to correspond to a standard cross-sectional image (i.e. one having an anatomical landmark such as the fetus’ nasal bone and required to diagnose the object’s condition or disease consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification.
Applicant further argues “these limitations together define a coordinated, GUI-driven workflow in which the user interacts with a specific reference image on-screen, and that interaction dynamically drives the candidate standard cross-sectional image toward correspondence with a predetermined standard cross-sectional imaging device” (REMARKS pg. 6-7) and “Lee merely describes rotating the underlying 3D image data 9i.e. volume data) itself to extract and update the side, top, and front images simultaneously. Lee does not disclose a GUI interaction where a specific 2D ‘reference cross-sectional image’ is physically rotated on a GUI view by a user” (REMARKS pg. 7). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a GUI-driven workflow in which the user interacts with a specific reference image on-screen” and “a GUI interaction where a specific 2D reference cross-sectional image is physically rotated on a GUI view by a user” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, it is noted that there is no implicit nor explicit user interaction recited in the claims. The word user in the claims is merely used to describe a GUI, however, the rotating of the reference cross-section image is recited in the method claim 1 as being done “on the first GUI view” and in the apparatus claim 11 is recited as being done by the at least one processor without any user interaction or physical rotation required to be done by the user. Rather the claim broadly reads on the processor rotating the reference cross-sectional image on the first GUI View. This feature is explicitly taught by Lee and is done via rotation of the image data as disclosed in at least [0063])
Applicant further argues “Lee completely fails to teach or suggest the dynamic operation of adjusting the slicing plane of a "candidate standard cross-sectional image" in response to the rotation of the reference image on the GUI so that it eventually corresponds to the "standard cross-sectional image." Critically, Lee has no concept of a distinct "candidate standard cross-sectional image" that is progressively and interactively updated toward a separate, predetermined "standard cross-sectional image" including anatomical landmarks through a user-controlled GUI rotation. The simultaneous updating of all three orthogonal views in Lee upon rotation of the volume data is an entirely different mechanism from the targeted, slicing-plane adjustment of a candidate image in response to a GUI-based rotation of a reference cross-sectional image as claimed. Accordingly, Lee does not disclose each and every element of independent claims 1 and 11, nor does it disclose the dependent claims which incorporate these same limitations” (REMARKS pg. 7). In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “dynamic operation of adjusting the slicing plane of a candidate standard cross-sectional image in response to the rotation of the reference image” are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Examiner notes that the claim merely recites that the updating of the candidate standard cross-sectional image on the first GUI view is based on the rotation of the reference image, but does not specifically recite that the updating is in response to the rotation of the reference image. Nonetheless, it is noted that the simultaneous rotation of the cross-sectional images as noted by applicant reads on the recited limitation of “updating the candidate standard cross-section… based on the rotation the reference cross section” in that as the top image is adjusted/rotated (due to rotation of the 3D image data) so is the candidate standard cross-section. Regarding applicant’s arguments that Lee fails to teach adjusting a slicing plane of the candidate standard cross-section so that it eventually corresponds to the standard cross-section. Examiner first notes that “to correspond with the standard cross-section” is considered intended use as noted above. Nonetheless, examiner notes that this feature is explicitly taught by Lee in [0121] which discloses performing rotation transformation and translation transformation on the image data changes the reference sagittal plane and in [0125] which discloses that the 3D ultrasound apparatus may apply the similarity function while rotating and moving the image data and determine the reference sagittal plane where the similarity is the highest as the mid sagittal plane. Therefore it is noted that the rotating and moving of the image data which updates the sagittal plane (i.e. side image) is considered to adjust a slicing plane of the candidate standard cross-sectional image accordingly and further that such adjusting of the slicing plane is to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image (i.e. mid sagittal plane). For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “that Dufour is entirely inapposite and its combination with Lee would not have been suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. Dufour is directed to automatically determining spatial rotation angles based on detected organ motion, not a GUI-driven coordinated rotation of reference and candidate cross- sectional images. Specifically, Dufour discloses a system in which a spatial orientation or rotation angle for a two-dimensional image plane is computed automatically from motion data detected within three- dimensional ultrasound volume data, for example, cardiac motion such as the motion of heart valves, without any user interaction on a GUI view. This automatic, motion-triggered plane determination is conceptually and functionally divorced from the claimed coordinated GUI interaction in which a user rotates a reference cross-sectional image on a display, and the system responds in real time by adjusting the slicing plane of a candidate standard cross-sectional image until it corresponds to a clinically defined standard. Claims 5-8 and 15-16 depend from independent claims 1 and 11 respectively, and recite further refinements of this GUI-driven process, including angle indicators and slicing plane adjustments that are meaningful only within the context of that coordinated GUI workflow. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to incorporate Dufour's fully automated, motion-based plane determination technique into the GUI-driven rotation framework of the claimed invention, particularly because Dufour is directed to a different problem, compensating for organ motion automatically, and operates in an entirely different mode” (REMARKS pg. 9). As noted above, there is no requirement of the claims for a user to rotate a reference cross-sectional image on a display and the system responding in real time by adjusting the slicing plane of a candidate standard cross-sectional image. Furthermore, Applicant appears to misconstrue the modification of Lee as applicant argues there would have been no motivation to incorporate Dufour’s fully automated, motion based plane determination technique into the GUI-driven rotation framework of the claimed invention. It is note first that the modification is not to modify the claimed invention, but rather to modify the teachings of Lee and further it is not to modify Lee to incorporate any automated, motion based plane determination, but rather is merely relied upon for displaying an angle indicator. In other words, Dufour is not relied upon to teach the rotation/adjusting of the slicing plane as these features are taught by Lee as noted above. Dufour is merely relied upon to teach displaying an angle indicator in which the motivation to do so would allow a user to readily recognize the difference between the current scan plane and a desired plane. Applicant makes no specific arguments/evidence with respect to the modification and motivation provided by examiner in the Office Action mailed on 01/29/2026. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Lee and Dufour are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “Applicants respectfully disagree that this combination provides a proper basis for an obviousness rejection. Ohuchi is directed to an X-ray and fluoroscopy-based image processing system that employs landmark detection in multi-modality imaging (X-ray and ultrasound) for the purpose of aligning and overlaying images of anatomical structures, particularly in the context of cardiac catheter guidance. Claims 9 and 17 recite the step of displaying at least one anatomical landmark with a preset color that is distinguished from other areas, on the first GUI view, a feature that is specifically tied to the coordinated, user-driven GUI workflow of claims 1 and 11 in which a candidate standard cross-sectional image is navigated, in real time, into alignment with a clinically defined standard cross-sectional image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have had no motivation to look to Ohuchi's X-ray-based multi-modality landmark registration system for guidance in designing the color-coded landmark display of the ultrasound-based GUI workflow of claims 9 and 17. The two systems are directed to entirely different clinical problems, operate on different imaging modalities, and serve different purposes” (REMARKS pg. 9-10). Applicant’s arguments are found to be merely conclusory without any specific arguments/evidence as to why a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to modify the teachings of Lee to include displaying the at least one anatomical landmark with a preset color that is distinguished from other areas. Arguments cannot replace evidence where evidence is necessary (MPEP 2143). Examiner first notes that applicant explicitly notes that the landmark detection is in multi-modality imaging which includes ultrasound and that Lee is directed to an ultrasound apparatus, therefore applicant’s arguments that the two systems are directed to entirely different clinical problems, operate on different imaging modalities, and serve different purposes, are not found persuasive. It is further noted that regardless of the clinical problems, modalities, and purposes of Ohuchi, the claim broadly recites displaying at least one anatomical landmark with a preset color that is distinguished from other areas… It is noted that Lee explicitly teaches the anatomical landmark as present/detectable in the ultrasound images, therefore teachings of Ohuchi to merely display the anatomical landmark with such a preset color that is distinguished would have been an obvious modification to the teachings of Lee and merely amount to applying a color to the anatomical landmark to allow a user to readily recognize the anatomical landmark in the image. Applicant has not provided any sufficient arguments as to why the displaying of the at least one anatomical landmark in a preset color as taught by Ohuchi are not found persuasive as they appear to rely features which are not required by the claim nor are incorporated with respect to the teachings of Ohuchi. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments against the teachings of Lee and Ohuchi are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “claim 10 depends from claim 1 and recites the step of displaying a three-dimensional ultrasound image of the object on the first GUI view, a feature that would be meaningful only in the context of the overarching GUI-driven workflow of independent claim 1, which Lee fails to teach” (REMARKS pg. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that as noted above, Lee teaches all of the features of claim 1 and further teaches generating 3D image data, however, merely fails to explicitly teach display thereof. Displaying the 3D image data as a three-dimensional image as taught by Lee ‘506 merely amounts to displaying the image data of Lee which has already been generated and does not require any specific meaningful context with respect to the overarching GUI-driven workflow as argued by applicant. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Gerard, for its part, addresses the technical issue of ultrasound probe construction or operation for acquiring volume data, a matter unrelated to the GUI-driven coordinated image rotation and updating mechanism of the pending claims. Claim 19 depends from claim 11 and recites that the processor obtains volume data based on a reception signal from a probe, a conventional feature that does nothing to supply the missing GUI-driven coordinated image manipulation of the independent claim. Neither Lee '506 nor Gerard, alone or in combination with Lee, provides the missing structural and functional elements of claims 1 and 11, nor does either reference provide one of ordinary skill in the art with any reason to modify Lee's system to arrive at the claimed invention” (REMARKS pg. 10). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that as noted above, Lee teaches the features of claims 1 and 11 with respect to the rotation of the reference image on the GUI where there is no specific requirements of the claims of how the rotation is “GUI-driven” as repeatedly argued by applicant. For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
Applicant further argues “the combinations proposed by the Examiner, drawing on references directed to cardiac motion analysis (Dufour), X-ray landmark guidance (Ohuchi), general 3D ultrasound display (Lee '506), and probe acquisition (Gerard), span diverse technical fields addressing entirely different clinical problems. One of ordinary skill in the art confronting the problem of guiding a user through real-time, GUI-driven navigation from a candidate standard cross-sectional image to a predetermined clinically defined standard cross-sectional image would have had no reason to assemble this eclectic collection of references in the specific manner proposed by the Examiner, absent the impermissible guidance of Applicant's own disclosure. There is no articulated reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references, no suggestion in any of the references that such a combination should be made, and no reasonable expectation that doing so would yield the specific technical result achieved by Applicant's invention, the provision of real-time visual feedback, through coordinated GUI-based rotation and slicing plane adjustment, that allows a user to intuitively understand and track how a candidate standard cross-sectional image evolves into a clinically defined standard cross-sectional image containing anatomical landmarks” (REMARKS pg. 10-11). Examiner respectfully disagrees in that the claims for which 103 rejections are made do not require any modification which would confront a problem of guiding a user through real-time, GUI-driven navigation from a candidate standard cross-sectional image to a predetermined clinically defined standard cross-sectional image. In other words, the claims do not implicitly nor explicitly require any guidance to a user nor specific GUI-driven navigation and the modifications provided by examiner are not considered to result in such guidance nor GUI-driven navigation due to the lack of such a requirement by the claims. Applicant’s arguments that there is no articulated reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined these references, no suggestion in any of the references that such a combination should be made, and no reasonable expectation that doing so would yield the specific technical result achieved by Applicant's invention are not found persuasive as none of the arguments point to examiner’s explicitly provided motivation in the Office Action mailed on 01/29/2026 and are considered merely conclusory without such specific arguments/evidence. For example, examiner provide explicitly a motivation for the modification of Lee to include a display indicator as taught by Dufour to allow a user to readily recognize differences between the candidate plane and desired plane, displaying the anatomical feature (already taught by Lee) in a preset color as taught by Ohuchi in order to readily recognize the anatomical landmark, displaying a three-dimensional ultrasound image as taught by Lee (2016) to allow a user to visualize the volumetric image data from which the cross-sections are obtained, etc. however no arguments are made specifically as to why such motivations are insufficient and why the teachings of such references would not be combinable with the teachings of Lee.
For all of the reasons listed above, applicant’s arguments are not found persuasive.
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, 11-14, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee (US 20130072797 A1), hereinafter Lee.
Regarding claims 1, 11, and 20,
Lee discloses an ultrasound imaging device (at least fig. 1 (101) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0033]) comprising:
A display (FIG. 2, the 3D ultrasound apparatus may extract a side image, a top image, or a front image from an image data obtained by scanning an object in a human body and may display the image on the screen);
A memory storing one or more instructions ([0133] which discloses the above-described embodiments of the present invention may be recorded in non-transitory computer-readable media including program instructions to implement various operations embodied by a computer); and
At least one processor ([0133] which discloses the above-described embodiments of the present invention may be recorded in non-transitory computer-readable media including program instructions to implement various operations embodied by a computer),
Wherein the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions
to obtain volume data of an object ([0035] The scanner 103 may extract at least one of a side image (A-plane in a side direction or a sagittal plane), a top image (B-plane in a top direction or a transverse plane) and a front image (C-plane in a front direction or a coronal plane) with respect to an object in a human body from an image data obtained by scanning the object and then may display the at least one of the side image, the top image, and the front image on a screen. Examiner notes that such image data is considered volume data),
Obtain, from the volume data, a reference cross-sectional image (at least fig. 2 (203/213 and/or 205/215) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0062]) crossing a first axis (see at least fig. 2),
obtain from the volume data, a candidate standard cross-sectional image (at least fig. 2 (201/211) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0062]) crossing a second axis that is different from the first axis (see at least fig. 2),
display the reference cross-sectional image (at least fig. 2 (213 or 215) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0062]) and the candidate standard cross-sectional image (at least fig. 2 (211) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0062]) on a first graphic user interface (GUI) view (see at least fig. 2),
rotate the reference cross-sectional image on the first GUI view ([0063] which discloses as the image is rotated the 3D ultrasound apparatus updates the side image, the top image (i.e. the reference cross-sectional image), or the front image (i.e. the reference image)),
update the candidate standard cross-sectional image on the first GUI view to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image by adjusting a slicing plane of the candidate standard cross-sectional image based on the rotation of the reference cross-sectional image ([0063] which discloses as the image data is rotated or moved based on a selected reference, the 3D ultrasound apparatus updates the side image (i.e. the candidate standard cross-section), the top image, or the front image and displays the updated image on the screen, thereby easily detecting a 3D object. Examiner notes that “to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image is considered intended use and the updating must merely be capable of being used to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image. Additionally/alternatively see at least [0121] which discloses performing rotation transformation and translation transformation on the image data changes the reference sagittal plane and [0125] which discloses that the 3D ultrasound apparatus may apply the similarity function while rotating and moving the image data and determine the reference sagittal plane where the similarity is the highest as the mid sagittal plane. Therefore it is noted that the rotating and moving of the image data which updates the sagittal plane (i.e. side image) is considered to adjust a slicing plane of the candidate standard cross-sectional image accordingly and further that such adjusting of the slicing plane is to correspond to the standard cross-sectional image (i.e. mid sagittal plane)),
and display, according to completion of the rotation of the reference cross-sectional image, the updated candidate standard cross-sectional image as the standard cross-sectional image on the first GUI view ([0063] which discloses the 3D ultrasound apparatus displays the updated image on the screen, thereby easily detecting a 3D object), wherein the standard cross-sectional image includes at least one anatomical landmark (see at least fig. 2 examiner notes that the standard cross-sectional image includes at least an anatomical landmark ([0047] which discloses the controller 1113 may identify a fetus’ nasal bone in the side image and [0097] which discloses the 3D ultrasound apparatus may control a sagittal view of the object by extracting a side image of the fetus from the image data and by rotating the image data so that the brightness intensity in a falx area of the fetus, included in the side image, is largest)
Examiner notes that the apparatus would perform the method of claim 1 having corresponding method steps.
Regarding claims 2 and 12,
Lee further discloses wherein the standard cross-sectional image corresponds to a mid-sagittal plane (MSP) of the object ([0129] which discloses the 3D ultrasound apparatus may determine similarity and determine a reference sagittal plane 1125 where the similarity is highest as the mid sagittal plane. IN other words, the 3D ultrasound apparatus may measure the similarity while rotating or moving the image data and detect the highest similarity. Examiner notes that by rotating the image data as discussed previously the updated second image and thus the standard cross-sectional image therefore is considered to correspond to a mid-sagittal plane of the object. See also [0055] which discloses [0055] The controller 113 may automatically control a sagittal view of the object by matching a figure corresponding to the fetus included in the top image and rotating the image data so that the left/right matching of the matched figure is highest).
Regarding claims 3 and 13,
Lee further discloses wherein
The reference cross-sectional image corresponds to at least one of a coronal or an axial plane of the volume data ([0035] which discloses a top image (B-plane in a top direction or a transverse plane) and a front image (C-plane in a front direction or a coronal plane), and
The candidate standard cross-sectional image corresponds to a sagittal plane of the volume data ([0035] which discloses a side image (A-plane in a side direction or a sagittal plane)).
Regarding claims 4 and 14,
Lee further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display a first indicator representing a first line formed as a cross line of a slicing plane of the reference cross-sectional image and a slicing plane of the candidate standard cross-sectional image (see at least fig. 7 depicting an indicator (i.e. 703 on the left)) representing lines formed as cross lines of the (i.e. the initial cross-sectional image/side image)) and a second indicator representing a second line formed as a cross line of the slicing plane of the reference cross-sectional image and a slicing plane of the standard cross-sectional image, on the first GUI view (see at least fig. 7 (indicator on the right) (i.e. after rotation). See also fig. 5 depicting a cross line as the first indicator (i.e. the middle image) and a cross line as the second indicator (i.e. the image on the right after rotation)).
Regarding claim 18,
Lee further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display at least one landmark of the object with a preset color (Examiner notes that any display of any landmark of the object (e.g. the nasal bone) is necessarily displayed with a preset color (e.g. in grayscale in an ultrasound image)).
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 5-8 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Dufour et al. (US 20180116635 A1), hereinafter Dufour.
Regarding claim 5 and 15,
Lee teaches the elements of claims 4 and 14 as previously stated. Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display an angle indicator representing an angle between the first indicator and the second indicator on the first GUI view.
Nonetheless, Dufour teaches at least one processor configured to display an angle indicator (at least fig. 3 (46) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0058]) representing an angle between a first indicator (at least fig. 3 (dotted line)) and a second indicator (at least fig. 3 (34) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0058]).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to include an angle indicator as taught by Dufour in order to allow a user to readily recognize the difference between the current candidate plane and the desired plane accordingly. Such a modification would ensure the user may confirm the relationship between the current plane and the final plane such that rotation of the image data occurs as desired.
Regarding claim 6,
Lee, as modified, further teaches wherein rotating of the reference cross-sectional image comprises rotating the reference cross-sectional image such that the angle between the first indicator and the second indicator is reduced (Examiner notes that in the modified system the angle between the first indicator and the second indicator is reduced such that it would match/be zero as the second indicator depicts the final image rotation)
Regarding claims 7 and 16,
Lee, as modified, further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to adjust the slicing plane of the candidate cross-sectional image such that the angle between the first indicator and the second indicator corresponds to an angle between the reference cross-sectional image and the standard cross-sectional image (Examiner notes that in the modified system the angle between the first indicator and the second indicator would necessarily correspond to any angle between the reference cross-sectional image and the standard cross-sectional image).
Regarding claim 8,
Lee, as modified, further teaches further comprising displaying of the updated candidate standard cross-sectional image as the standard cross-sectional image comprises completing the rotation of the reference cross-sectional image when the angle between the first indicator and the second indicator becomes zero (Examiner notes that in the modified system the angle between the first indicator and the second indicator is reduced such that it would be zero as the second indicator depicts the final image rotation).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Ohuchi et al. (US 20150193962 A1), hereinafter Ohuchi.
Regarding claims 9 and 17,
Lee teaches the elements of claims 1 and 11 as previously stated. Lee fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to display the at least one anatomical landmark with a preset color that is distinguished from other areas on the first GUI view.
Ohuchi, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches wherein at least one processor is configured to execute instructions to display at least one anatomical landmark with a preset color that is distinguished from other areas on a first GUI view ([0181] which discloses displays landmarks such that the colors of the landmarks vary, by making the landmarks distinguishable from one another).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to include displaying at least one anatomical landmark with a preset color as taught by Ohuchi in order to allow a user to readily recognize the anatomical landmark(s). Such a modification would enhance a user’s ability to identify different anatomical landmarks which would ultimately assist with diagnosis/evaluation of the patient accordingly.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Lee et al. (US 20160120506 A1), hereinafter Lee (2016).
Regarding claim 10,
Lee teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Lee fails to explicitly teach further comprising displaying a three-dimensional ultrasound image of the object on the first GUI view.
Lee (2016) teaches displaying a three-dimensional ultrasound image of an object on a first GUI view ([0095] which discloses the display 330 may display a screen including the at least one of at least one 2D ultrasound image and the 3D ultrasound image, as well as the at least one first ultrasound image).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to include displaying a three-dimensional ultrasound image of the object as taught by Lee (2016) in order to allow a user to visualize the volumetric image data as well as the cross-sectional images from which it is obtained. Furthermore, such a modification would enhance the visualization of the object such that it is presented in three dimensions thus allowing for enhanced diagnosis/evaluation of the object.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Gerard et al. (US 20140013849 A1 included in Applicant’s IDS), hereinafter Gerard.
Regarding claim 19,
Lee teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Examiner notes that ultrasound data as disclosed by Lee would necessarily require a probe, however, such a probe is not explicitly taught by Lee. Therefore, Lee fails to explicitly teach further comprising a probe, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the one or more instructions to obtain the volume data based on a reception signal received from the probe.
Nonetheless, Gerard, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging, teaches a probe (at least fig. 1 (106) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0019]) and wherein at least one processor is further configured to execute one or more instructions to obtain volume data based on a reception signal received from the probe ([0044] which discloses may be modified so that volumetric data, such as 3D or 4D data, is acquired instead of multi-plane at step 202. The user may then view two or more slices or planes from the volumetric data).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Lee to include a probe as taught by Gerard in order to provide the ultrasound data for obtaining volumetric imaging data accordingly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kabus (US 20190378241 A1) teaches a first image and second image which may comprise a plurality of views may be displayed on the user interface 104 ([0042]), rotating the first image and updating the second image based on the rotation of the first image ([0060])
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 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 571-270-0552. 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