DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 10 December 2025.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 1-5, 7-12, 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US PGPUB 20090088640; hereinafter "Park") in further view of Sokulin et al. (US PGPUB 20170086780; hereinafter "Sokulin").
With regards to Claim 1, Park discloses a method for a classification-dependent user interface in ultrasound imaging with an ultrasound scanner (a method for classification of a view from echocardiographic data; see Park ¶ [0043]), the method comprising:
scanning a patient with the ultrasound scanner (automatic Doppler gate localization in spectral Doppler echocardiography; see Park ¶ [0017]);
identifying, by the ultrasound scanner, a view represented by an image from the scanning (“training and classification may include any number of views. In one example, the class includes A2C, A3C, A4C, and A5C. Short axis views may be included or used as alternatives,” see Park ¶ [0056] & Claim 12);
assigning an anatomy list including anatomy selection options to a user input element of a user interface, the anatomy list assigned based on the identified view (in case of ambiguity for cardiac views where more that [sic] one valve is present, the user may select the desired valve through a button on the system console {i.e. user interface}; see Park ¶ [0081]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the more than one valves is presented as a list of at least two options); and
placing a Doppler gate or region of interest for flow imaging in response to user input with the user input element, the user input selecting anatomy using the anatomy selection options as assigned based on the identified view (the Doppler gate are located at inferred positions based on determined anatomical structure; see Park ¶ [0077] & Act 72; or based on the user selection; see Park ¶ [0081]; the spectral Doppler is measured at said gate locations; see Park Act 74 & ¶ [079]-[0080])
While Park discloses a list of anatomy selection options, as detailed above, it appears the Park may be silent to said list being ordered according to priority based on the identified view. However Sokulin teaches of automatically identifying a select Doppler gate from the candidate Doppler gates based on a characteristic of the spectral data sets, and calculate a cardiac output of the patient based on the select Doppler gate (see Sokulin Abstract). In particular, Sokulin teaches of wherein the anatomy list includes anatomy selection options which are ordered according to priority based on the identified view (limiting the candidate gates to those that meet a threshold criteria and reduce the size of the corresponding ROI (see Sokulin ¶ [0080]). The system may also receive an alternative selection from remaining candidate gates, by user via user interface, of candidate gates withing said ROI or within a proximity to the originally selected candidate gate (see Sokulin ¶ [0083]). The act of limiting the candidate gates based on threshold or based on proximity amounts to an order list based on priority).
Park and Sokulin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated Doppler gate placement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the above teachings of Sokulin to provide at least the struck-through limitations above. Doing so would aid in allowing the user to select an alternative or new Doppler gate than the one automatically selected (see Sokulin ¶ [0083]).
Claim 10 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 1.
With regards to Claim 21, modified Park teaches of further comprising:
detecting locations of features included in the image from scanning (the range gate location is set relative to the inferred/detected local structure, e.g. mitral valve, aortic valve, tricuspid valve, etc.; see Park ¶ [0077]).
Claim 11 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 2.
With regards to Claim 32, modified Park teaches of wherein the features to be detected are selected based on the view identified by the ultrasound scanner (The multi-class view classifier 32 is a multi-class local structure classifier… a window sized to approximate the left ventricle area is applied to the data {i.e. view}. The windowed data is classified as being the left ventricle {i.e. detected feature based on left ventricle view} for a particular view; see Park ¶ [0033]).
With regards to Claim 41, modified Park teaches of further comprising:
imaging flow at a currently selected one of the anatomy selection options with the Doppler gate or color region of interest (spectral Doppler information is measured at the gate position; see Park ¶ [0079]).
With regards to Claim 51, modified Park teaches of wherein identifying the view further comprises identifying the view as one of apical four chamber, apical two chamber, parasternal long axis, and parasternal short axis (“training and classification may include any number of views. In one example, the class includes A2C, A3C, A4C, and A5C. Short axis views may be included or used as alternatives,” see Park ¶ [0056] & Claim 12).
Claim 12 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 5.
With regards to Claim 71, modified Park teaches of further comprising:
placing a Doppler gate in response to selection of a region of interest with the user input element (in case of ambiguity for cardiac views where more that [sic] one valve is present, the user may select the desired valve through a button on the system console {i.e. user input}; see Park ¶ [0081]).
Claim 15 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 7.
With regards to Claim 81, modified Park teaches of further comprising:
displaying one or more images representing the Doppler gate or region of interest for flow as part of the user interface for selecting anatomy using the anatomy selection options (in case of ambiguity for cardiac views where more that [sic] one valve is present, the user may select the desired valve through a button on the system console {i.e. user input}; see Park ¶ [0081]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the two options must be presented to the user to select from, i.e. an image representing the desired anatomy from options for placing the Doppler gate).
Claim 14 recite similar limitations and are rejected under the same rationale as Claim 8.
With regards to Claim 91, modified Park teaches of further comprising:
generating a graphical representation of the anatomy selection options as assigned based on the identified view ,
wherein the graphical representation is a carton or wire frame representation of the anatomy selection options or a live actual cardiac image with an area of the anatomy selection option highlighted.
With regards to Claim 16, modified Park teaches of a system for an image classification-dependent user interface in ultrasound imaging (a method for classification of a view from echocardiographic data; see Park ¶ [0043]), the system comprising:
an image processor (processor 12 for classification; see Park ¶ [0029]) configured to identify a view represented by ultrasound data (“training and classification may include any number of views. In one example, the class includes A2C, A3C, A4C, and A5C. Short axis views may be included or used as alternatives,” see Park ¶ [0056] & Claim 12), alter behavior of a user interface component based on the view identified by the ultrasound data such that identification of a different view provides for different behavior of the same user interface component (in case of ambiguity for cardiac views where more that [sic] one valve is present, the user may select the desired valve through a button on the system console {i.e. user interface}; see Park ¶ [0081]; one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the at least two options must be presented to the user as a list and that presentation alters the user interface to belay said options), and receive selection of an anatomy selection option included in an ordered anatomy list assigned based on the view identified by the ultrasound data using the interface component (the Doppler gate are located at inferred positions based on determined anatomical structure; see Park ¶ [0077] & Act 72; or based on the user selection; see Park ¶ [0081]; the spectral Doppler is measured at said gate locations; see Park Act 74 & ¶ [079]-[0080]; it should be appreciated that any list of options amounts to an ordered list); and
an ultrasound system configured to image based on the selection of an anatomy selection option (the spectral Doppler is measured at said gate locations; see Park Act 74 & ¶ [079]-[0080])
While Park discloses a list of anatomy selection options, as detailed above, it appears the Park may be silent to said list being ordered according to priority based on the identified view. However Sokulin teaches of automatically identifying a select Doppler gate from the candidate Doppler gates based on a characteristic of the spectral data sets, and calculate a cardiac output of the patient based on the select Doppler gate (see Sokulin Abstract). In particular, Sokulin teaches of wherein the anatomy list includes anatomy selection options which are ordered according to priority based on the identified view (limiting the candidate gates to those that meet a threshold criteria and reduce the size of the corresponding ROI (see Sokulin ¶ [0080]). The system may also receive an alternative selection from remaining candidate gates, by user via user interface, of candidate gates withing said ROI or within a proximity to the originally selected candidate gate (see Sokulin ¶ [0083]). The act of limiting the candidate gates based on threshold or based on proximity amounts to a list prioritized based on the identified view {i.e. remaining candidate gates}).
Park and Sokulin are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated Doppler gate placement. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Park to incorporate the above teachings of Sokulin to provide at least the struck-through limitations above. Doing so would aid in allowing the user to select an alternative or new Doppler gate than the one automatically selected (see Sokulin ¶ [0083]).
With regards to Claim 1716, modified Park teaches of wherein the image processor is configured to detect locations of features included in the view represented by ultrasound data (the range gate location is set relative to the inferred/detected local structure, e.g. mitral valve, aortic valve, tricuspid valve, etc.; see Park ¶ [0077]).
With regards to Claim 1817, modified Park teaches of wherein the features to be detected are selected based on the view identified by the image processor (The multi-class view classifier 32 is a multi-class local structure classifier… a window sized to approximate the left ventricle area is applied to the data {i.e. view}. The windowed data is classified as being the left ventricle {i.e. detected feature based on left ventricle view} for a particular view; see Park ¶ [0033]).
With regards to Claim 1916, modified Park teaches of the image processor is configured to identify the view as one of apical four chamber, apical two chamber, parasternal long axis, and parasternal short axis (“training and classification may include any number of views. In one example, the class includes A2C, A3C, A4C, and A5C. Short axis views may be included or used as alternatives,” see Park ¶ [0056] & Claim 12).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
In particular, Applicant contends that Park does not anticipate the newly amended claims. The Office agrees. However, to address the shortcomings of Park, the Office reintroduces Sokulin, previously cited in the Office Action of 6 December 2022 in parent application US 16/946,541. As cited above, Sokulin teaches of limiting the candidate gates to those that meet a threshold criteria and reduce the size of the corresponding ROI (see Sokulin ¶ [0080]). The system may also receive an alternative selection, by user via user interface, of candidate gates withing said ROI or within a proximity to the originally selected candidate gate (see Sokulin ¶ [0083]). The act of limiting the candidate gates based on threshold or based on proximity amounts to prioritizing based on the identified view because the list is selected among the remaining candidate gates which is reduced view the identified ROI and non-candidate gates. It should be appreciated that the instant specification fails to establish a basis for the claimed “priority” and therefore is subject to its plain and ordinary meaning.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (CST).
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, Keith M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798