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
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 101
Examiner notes that the previously set forth 101 rejections are withdrawn in view of the cancellation of claims 5-11.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(a)
Examiner notes that the previously set forth 112(a) rejection is withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims, however, new 112(a) rejections are necessitated by amendment.
Regarding 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
Examiner notes that the previously set forth 112(b) rejections are withdrawn in view of the amendments to the claims, however, new 112(b) rejections are necessitated by amendment.
Regarding prior art
Applicant's arguments filed 05/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. For example, applicant acknowledges that “as shown in Figure 1, the ‘146 patent discloses a flow rate switch 36. In particular, as shown in Figure 3, the 146 patent discloses a flow rate switch having three individual switches, ‘…. Namely a high rate switch 36a, a medium rate switch 36b, and a low rate switch 36c’” and argues that Sato fails to disclose limitations recited in amended claim 1 (See REMARKS pg. 9-10) without any specific arguments/evidence that these features are not taught by Sato other than stating so . Examiner notes that arguments cannot replace evidence where evidence is necessary (MPEP 2145). Regarding arguments that the ‘146 patent fails to disclose these features, examiner respectfully disagrees in that Sato explicitly teaches the receiving an operation from a user-manipulable control (i.e. switch 36) which is configured to continuously adjust a value of a flow rate range parameter (i.e. the flow rate range) through selection of the switches and determining each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range parameter to be change whether a flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to a predetermined value (through determining that the switch has been selected and therefore determining that the flow rate range is associated with the high flow rate or medium flow rate and therefore is greater than 30 cm/s or 10 m/s which is associated with the medium flow rate and low flow rate respectively). Examiner notes that such a determination of the flow rate range being equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold further appears consistent with applicant’s originally filed specification in at least pg. 31-32 with respect to fig. 8 disclosing that the processing circuitry may transition from the low-flow rate imaging mode M2A to the original first bloodstream imaging mode upon a change of the flow rate range to 10 cm/s or more and at least pg. 45 with respect to fig. 17 which discloses the processing circuitry 180 transitions from the low-flow rate bloods stream imaging method to the first bloodstream imaging method upon a change of the flow rate range to 10 cm/s or more. For at least these reasons applicant’s arguments with respect to the teachings of Sato are not found persuasive.
Furthermore, it is noted that an alternative 102 rejection is set forth in view of the amendments to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range parameter to be changed, repeatedly determine whether a changed value of the flow rate range parameter is equal to or greater to a predetermined threshold value”. Examiner notes that there is no implicit nor explicit support for repeatedly determining each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range to be changed. In other words, the limitation in its broadest reasonable interpretation includes an interpretation in which the flow rate range is change for example two times and each of those two times repeated determination occurs (i.e. the first time it is changed a determination is performed repeatedly or multiple times and the second time it is changed a determination is performed repeatedly or more multiple times). The word repeatedly is disclosed one time in applicant’s originally filed specification regarding the trigger generation circuitry repeatedly generates a rate pulse, however, there is no disclosure of such repeatedly determining for each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range to be changed. Examiner notes that while there appears to be support that a determination occurs each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range to be changed in for example pgs. 31-32 and 47, there is insufficient written description of repeatedly determining each time. For at least these reasons, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the original time of filing and the limitation therefore constitutes new matter.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “without receiving a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method different from the first bloodstream imaging method among the at least two bloodstream imaging methods, in response to determining that the changed value of the flow rate range parameter”. In its broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation reads on without receiving any user operation which would be capable of selecting a second bloodstream imaging method. Such a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method therefore reads on the operation received via the user-manipulable control. The limitation is therefore contradictory with the claim and is not sufficiently supported by applicant’s specification which relies upon a user to change the flow rate range (see at least pg. 27 which discloses the user changes at least one of the flow rate range, transmission frequency, or color gain, in order to change the display parameter of the ultrasonic image displayed on the display). In other words, by first reciting receiving, via a user-manipulable control, an operation there is no support for further recitation of “without receiving a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method”, when the operation received by the user-manipulable control operation is considered a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method which is ultimately used (via determination with respect to the changed value) to transition (thus select) the second bloodstream imaging method. For at least these reasons, a person having ordinary skill in the art would not have recognized the inventor had possession of the claimed invention at the original time of filing and the limitation therefore constitutes new matter.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “without receiving a user operation to select the first bloodstream imaging method” and is constitutes new matter for the same reasons listed above in that there the user operation to select the first bloodstream imaging method may be the same as the another operation to change the value of the flow rate range parameter and therefore is contradictory and unsupported by applicant’s originally filed specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-4 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range parameter to be changed, repeatedly determine whether a changed value of the flow rate range parameter is equal to or greater to a predetermined threshold value”. It is unclear what is meant by each time… repeatedly determined. In other words, it is unclear if the changed value is repeatedly compared with the predetermined threshold value and if so, it is unclear why the value would need to repeatedly compared each time it is changed. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean that the determination occurs each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range parameter to be changed, thus repeatedly, however, clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “without receiving a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method different from the first bloodstream imaging method among the at least two bloodstream imaging methods, in response to determining that the changed value of the flow rate range parameter”. The limitation is unclear due to the breadth of “a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method” which may be the same as the operation which is received via a user-manipulable control. In other words, the limitation appears contradictory in that the claim first recites receive, via a user-manipulable control…, an operation, and further recites without receiving a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method and it is unclear how both instances can occur. For examination purposes, it has been interpreted to mean without receiving a subsequent/different user operation than the operation previously received, however, clarification is required.
Claim 14 recites “without receiving a user operation to select the first bloodstream imaging method” and is rejected for the same reasons listed above with respect to claim 1 “without receiving a user operation to select the second bloodstream imaging method”.
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.
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.
(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, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Sato (US 5078146 A), hereinafter Sato.
Regarding claim 1,
Sato teaches an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus (at least fig. 1 and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 4 lines 1-3) comprising:
An ultrasound probe (at least fig. 1 (10) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 4 lines 19-47) configured to receive a reflected ultrasound wave from a subject and output a signal of the reflected ultrasound wave (Col. 3 lines 30-35 disclosing a transducer means for receiving an ultrasonic wave reflected by the object and Col. 4 line 47-Col. 5 line 14 disclosing output s from the probe 10 are supplied to an adder);
A display (at least fig. 1 (46) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 5 lines 54-58); and
Processing circuitry (at least fig. 1 (12, 24, 26, 28, 36, 38, 40, 42, and 44) and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 4-Col. 6) configured to:
execute a first bloodstream imaging method (see at least fig. 4 (mode 3 or mode 3 and corresponding disclosure in at least Col. 6 lines 19-24) among at least two bloodstream imaging methods (mode 1, mode 2, and mode 3) that differ from each other in at least one of (i) a scan protocol or (ii) bloodstream signal processing (see at least fig. 4 depicting different scan protocols, Examiner notes that the corresponding signal processing would differ accordingly (i.e. in order to process the data differently according to the different scan protocols);
generate, according to the first bloodstream imaging method, a first two dimensional blood flow image based on the signal of the reflected ultrasound received by the ultrasound probe (Col. 5 lines 46-53 which disclose in a color processing circuit 42, similar to a conventional apparatus, a color Doppler image is displayed in such a manner that a direction toward the probe 10 and a direction from the probe 10 are respectively represented by red and blue, a mean velocity is represented by the saturation of a color, and a rate variance is represented by hue (mixing of green))
display the first two-dimensional blood flow image on the display (Col. 1 lines 15-19 which discloses the BDF apparatus is designed to output a color display of a blood flow image included in a tomographic image (B-mode image) in accordance with a blood flow direction and a blood flow rate);
while displaying the first two-dimensional blood flow image on the display, receive, via a user-manipulable control (at least fig. 3 (36) and corresponding disclosure In at least Col. 5 lines 59-Col. 6 line 5) configured to continuously adjust a value of a flow rate range parameter (Col. 5 line 59- Col. 6 line 5 which discloses the flow rate switch 36 serves to input an approximate flow rate at a portion to be diagnosed of an object to be examined as a parameter for changing a raster control mode. Examiner notes that such a switch 36 comprising switches 36a-36c would continuously adjust a value of the flow rate range (i.e. as the switches are turned on/off)), an operation to change the value of the flow rate range parameter (Col. 6 lines 19-23 which discloses As shown in FIG. 4, when the high rate switch 36a is depressed, mode 1 is selected. When the medium rate switch 36b is depressed, mode 2 is selected. When the low rate switch 36c is depressed, mode 3 is selected. Furthermore, a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the processor is configured to receive such an operation of a switch change in any instance including while displaying the first two-dimensional blood flow image on the display)
each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range parameter to be changed, repeatedly determine whether a changed value of the flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value (Col. 5 line 60- Col. 6 line 5 which discloses The flow rate switch 36 is formed of a plurality of switches arranged in units of flow rate ranges, three switches in this case, namely a high rate switch 36a, a medium rate switch 36b, and a low rate switch 36c. In this case, the medium rate switch 36b is for the abdomen and corresponds to a flow rate range of 10 to 30 cm/s. Flow rates higher than this flow rate range correspond to the high rate switch 36a (for the heart). Flow rates lower than this flow rate range correspond to the low rate switch 36c (for the limb) and Col. 6 lines 19-23 which discloses As shown in FIG. 4, when the high rate switch 36a is depressed, mode 1 is selected. When the medium rate switch 36b is depressed, mode 2 is selected. When the low rate switch 36c is depressed, mode 3 is selected. Examiner notes that such depression of switches and corresponding control thereafter requires determining whether the changed value of the flow rate range parameter (i.e. flow rate range selected by the user) is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold. In other words, the switches are associated with specific flow rate ranges and thus when depressed it is determined whether the range is within the flow rate range of such as the ranges associated with the other ranges and determines whether or not the changed flow rate range is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value e (e.g. whether it is greater than or equal to cm/s for the medium rate switch or or 30 cm/s for the high rate switch), and
without receiving a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method different from the first bloodstream imaging method among the at least two bloodstream imaging methods, in response to determining that the changed value of the flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to the predetermined value, execute the second blood stream imaging method (mode 1 or mode 2), generate a second two-dimensional blood flow image based on the signal of the reflected wave and display the generated two dimensional blood flow image on the display (Col. 6 lines 21-23 which disclose when the medium rate switch 36b is depressed, mode 2 is selected. When the low rate switch 36c is depressed, mode 3 is selected. Examiner notes that upon selection, it is determined that the changed value of the flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to the predetermined value (i.e. greater than or equal to 10 cm/s or 30 cm/s, the system would function such that the second blood stream imaging method is then executed and corresponding image generation and display occurs).
Regarding claim 4,
Sato further discloses wherein each of the first bloodstream imaging method and the second bloodstream imaging method is defined by a scan protocol and a signal processing method (Col. 6 lines 24-52 which discloses the different imaging methods for each of the bloodstream imaging methods. Examiner notes that the imaging method is defined by a scan protocol (i.e. sampling frequency) and corresponding signal processing (i.e. by DSC26/color processing circuit 42)).
Regarding claim 14,
Sato further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
After starting execution of the second bloodstream imaging method, receive another operation to change the value of the flow rate range parameter(Col. 6 lines 20-23 which discloses when the high rate switch 36a is depressed, mode 1 is selected. When the medium rate switch 36b is depressed, mode 2 is selected. When the low rate switch 36c is depressed, mode 3 is selected. Examiner notes that the processing circuitry is configured to acquire any such changed flow rate range through depression of the switch at any point in time including after the first transition); and
Without receiving a user operation to select the first bloodstream imaging method, in response to determining that another changed value of the flow rate range parameter is less than the predetermined threshold value, execute the first bloodstream imaging method (Col. 6 lines 20-23 which discloses when the high rate switch 36a is depressed, mode 1 is selected. When the medium rate switch 36b is depressed, mode 2 is selected. When the low rate switch 36c is depressed, mode 3 is selected).
Claims 1, 4, and 14 are alternatively rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 as being anticipated by Yoshiara et al. (US 20190357874 A1), hereinafter Yoshiara.
Regarding claim 1,
Yoshiara discloses an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus (at least fig. 1 (1) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0042]) comprising:
An ultrasound probe (at least fig. 1 (101) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0043]) configured to receive a reflected ultrasound wave from a subject and output a signal of the reflected ultrasound wave ([0043]);
A display (at least fig. 1 (103) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0047]); and
Processing circuitry (at least fig. 1 (100) and corresponding disclosure in at least [0048]) configured to:
execute a first bloodstream imaging method (at least fig. 4 and corresponding disclosure in at least [0107]) among at least two bloodstream imaging methods (at least fig. 4 and 5 and corresponding disclosure in at least [0008]-[0009], [0107]-[0110], and [0089]-[0090]) that differ from each other in at least one of (i) a scan protocol or (ii) bloodstream signal processing ([0107]-[0110] and [0089]-[0090] disclosing the different scan protocols and bloodstream processing between phase modulation method and amplitude modulation method);
generate, according to the first bloodstream imaging method, a first two dimensional blood flow image based on the signal of the reflected ultrasound received by the ultrasound probe ([0108] which discloses Also, the B-mode processing circuitry 130 generates B-mode data (second B-mode data) from which contrast-enhanced image data is to be generated, by performing an envelope detecting process or the like on data obtained by adding the reflected-wave data based on the reflected wave of the ultrasound wave 12 to the reflected-wave data based on the reflected wave of the ultrasound wave 11. Further, the image generating circuitry 150 generates tissue image data indicating a part (a segmented region) of a tissue image 54, on the basis of the first B-mode data. Also, the image generating circuitry 150 generates contrast-enhanced image data indicating a part (a segmented region) of a contrast-enhanced image 51 rendering a non-linear signal from a contrast agent in a picture, on the basis of the second B-mode data and [0129] which discloses Further, every time contrast-enhanced image data and blood flow image data are generated, the image generating circuitry 150 generates superimposed image data by superimposing the contrast-enhanced image data on the blood flow image data and [0130] which discloses for example, the controlling circuitry 180 reads the blood flow image data, the contrast-enhanced image data, and the tissue image data from the image memory 160. Further, the controlling circuitry 180 outputs the contrast-enhanced image data and the blood flow image data to the image generating circuitry 150. When having received the contrast-enhanced image data and the blood flow image data, the image generating circuitry 150 generates superimposed image data by superimposing the contrast-enhanced image data on the blood flow image data)
display the first two-dimensional blood flow image on the display ([0124] which discloses the controlling circuitry 180 causes the display 103 to display the contrast-enhanced image 51, a superimposed image 53 in which the blood flow image 52 is superimposed on the contrast-enhanced image 51, and the tissue image 54 that are arranged along the left-and-right direction);
while displaying the first two-dimensional blood flow image on the display, receive, via a user-manipulable control configured to continuously adjust a value of a flow rate range parameter ([0148] which discloses the operator is able to set the flowrate range by, for example, operating the input device 102. Examiner notes that a person having ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the user-manipulable control (e.g. the user input) is configured to continually adjust a value of the flow rate range in response to a user’s input. In other words, it is understood that the system is not a one-time use), an operation to change the value of the flow rate range parameter ([0148] which discloses the operator is able to set the flowrate range by, for example, operating the input device 10. Examiner notes that the system is configured to function such that the operator is able to set the flow rate range in any instance including while displaying the first two-dimensional blood flow image on the display)
each time the operation causes the value of the flow rate range parameter to be changed, repeatedly determine whether a changed value of the flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to a predetermined threshold value ([0148] which discloses when the upper limit value of the flowrate range is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, the controlling circuitry 180 selects the amplitude modulation method. Examiner notes that such selection necessarily requires the controlling circuitry to determine whether the parameter is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold), and
without receiving a user operation to select a second bloodstream imaging method different from the first bloodstream imaging method among the at least two bloodstream imaging methods, in response to determining that the changed value of the flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to the predetermined value, execute the second blood stream imaging method ([0148] which discloses when the upper limit value of the flowrate range is equal to or larger than a predetermined threshold value, the controlling circuitry 180 selects the amplitude modulation method), generate a second two-dimensional blood flow image based on the signal of the reflected wave [0110] which discloses the B-mode processing circuitry 130 generates B-mode data (the first B-mode data) from which tissue image data is to be generated, by performing an envelope detecting process or the like on the reflected-wave data “R2” based on the reflected wave of the ultrasound wave 13b. [0129] which discloses Further, every time contrast-enhanced image data and blood flow image data are generated, the image generating circuitry 150 generates superimposed image data by superimposing the contrast-enhanced image data on the blood flow image data and [0130] which discloses for example, the controlling circuitry 180 reads the blood flow image data, the contrast-enhanced image data, and the tissue image data from the image memory 160. Further, the controlling circuitry 180 outputs the contrast-enhanced image data and the blood flow image data to the image generating circuitry 150. When having received the contrast-enhanced image data and the blood flow image data, the image generating circuitry 150 generates superimposed image data by superimposing the contrast-enhanced image data on the blood flow image data) and display the generated two dimensional blood flow image on the display ([0124] which discloses the controlling circuitry 180 causes the display 103 to display the contrast-enhanced image 51, a superimposed image 53 in which the blood flow image 52 is superimposed on the contrast-enhanced image 51, and the tissue image 54 that are arranged along the left-and-right direction)).
Regarding claim 4,
Yoshiara further discloses wherein each of the first bloodstream imaging method and the second bloodstream imaging method is defined by a scan protocol and a signal processing method (see at least [0107]-[0110] and [0089]-[0090])
Regarding claim 14,
Yoshiara further discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to:
After starting execution of the second bloodstream imaging method, receive another operation to change the value of the flow rate range parameter ([0148] which discloses the operator is able to set the flowrate range by, for example, operating the input device 102. when the upper limit value of the flowrate range is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, the controlling circuitry 180 selects the phase modulation method); and
Without receiving a user operation to select the first bloodstream imaging method, in response to determining that another changed value of the flow rate range parameter is less than the predetermined threshold value, execute the first bloodstream imaging method ([0148] which discloses when the upper limit value of the flowrate range is smaller than the predetermined threshold value, the controlling circuitry 180 selects the phase modulation method)
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Elgena et al. (US 20200129156 A1), hereinafter Elgena or in the alternative Yoshiara in view of Elgena.
Regarding claim 2,
Sato/Yoshiara teach the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Sato/Yoshiaro fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display, as text on the display screen, information indicating that a transition from the first blood stream imaging method to the second blood stream imaging method has been made.
Elgena, in a similar field of endeavor involving blood flow imaging, teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display, as text on a display screen, information indicating that a transition from a first blood stream imaging mode to a second blood stream imaging method has been made (See at least figs. 5 and 6 and [0054] which discloses the range control option may include text indicating the current range and the processing circuitry may change text displayed by the range control option (e.g. from “low” to “high” or from “high” to “low”). Examiner notes such displaying of text (e.g. low or high) indicates that the switch was made).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sato or Yoshiara to include displaying as text on a display screen information as taught by Elgena in order to allow a user to readily recognize which imaging method is being used. Such a modification would therefor enhance a user’s understanding of the flow-rate range which is currently being imaged by looking at the display screen accordingly.
Regarding claim 15,
Sato, as modified, or Yoshiara, as modified, teaches the elements of claim 2 as previously stated. Elgena, as applied to claim 2 above, further teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the text at a position not overlapping with a region of interest (ROI) on an ultrasonic image (See at least figs. 1-6 which depict the text not overlapping with a region of interest (ROI) (i.e. 102) on an ultrasonic image)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Cadieu et al. (US 20210052255 A1), hereinafter Cadieu or in the alternative Yoshiara in view of Cadieu.
Regarding claim 3,
Sato/Yoshiara teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated.
Sato/Yoshiara fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display, as text on a display screen, recommending execution of the second bloodstream imaging method when it is determined that the changed value of the flow rate range parameter is greater than or equal to the predetermined threshold value.
Cadieu, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound imaging methods, teaches processing circuitry configured to display, as text on a screen, recommending execution of a second imaging method from a first imaging method ([0014] which discloses the program code is enabled to detect in the acquired imagery, a feature of the target organ mode mapped to a different operating mode (i.e. more suitable for a second imaging mode) and to respond to the detection by displaying a recommendation in a display of the computer to change operating modes of the ultrasound imaging probe and [0012] which discloses a textual reference to the recommended change of operating mode)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sato or Yoshiara to include displaying information as taught by Cadieu in order to allow the user to visualize when a transition between imaging modes is occurring. Such a modification would provide ultrasound guidance that is not dependent on the skill of the operator, therefore, specialized knowledge and expertise on the part of the ultrasound operator to acquire high quality ultrasound images is not required and iterative trial and error can be avoided (see Cadieu [0006]-[0010])
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato in view of Shibata et al. (US 20170224307 A1), hereinafter Shibata or in the alternative Yoshiara in view of Shibata.
Regarding claim 13,
Sato/Yoshiara teaches the elements of claim 1 as previously stated. Sato/Yoshiara fails to explicitly teach wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a change in the predetermined threshold value; and compare the changed predetermined threshold value with the changed value of the flow rate range parameter.
Shibata, in a similar field of endeavor involving ultrasound flow imaging, teaches wherein processing circuitry is further configured to: receive a change in a predetermined threshold ([0064] In this case, with respect to the receiving function 171, the direction of turn of the tab is associated with an increase/decrease of the upper limit value and the amount of turn of the tab is associated with the amount of a change of the upper limit value. When the operator turns the tab in the direction to increase the upper limit value, the receiving function 171 receives the turn as an instruction for increasing the upper limit value corresponding to the amount of turn of the tab)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified Sato or Yoshiara to include receiving a change in threshold as taught by Shibata in order to allow for enhanced variability of the system. Such a modification would allow for additional/different desired flow rate ranges as desired by the user such that imaging specific flow rates may be imaged as desired for specific diagnostic purposes.
Examiner notes that in the modified system, the processing circuitry would thus compare the changed flow rate range parameter with the changed predetermined threshold in order to perform the corresponding imaging method as desired.
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 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 on 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