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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2024/0206857; hereinafter Shin) and Chiang et al. (US 2021/0015456; hereinafter Chiang).
Shin shows an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and method (abstract) comprising: a storage unit that stores an image sequence consisting of a plurality of images arranged in time series, which are generated by repetition of transmission and reception of ultrasonic waves ([0099]); a setting unit that sets an evaluation period for the image sequence based on reference information indicating a status of an ultrasonic examination in a case in which a freeze operation is performed ([0069], [0101]); a selection unit that extracts an image group belonging to the evaluation period from the image sequence and evaluates each image constituting the image group to select a recommended image from the image group ([0104]-[0105], [0119]-[0121]); and a display unit that displays the recommended image after the freeze operation ([0104]).
Shin also shows wherein the setting unit includes a first determination unit that determines a past reference time used as a reference in a case of setting the evaluation period, based on all or a part of the reference information (diastolic period, [0074]; preset period, [0077]; reference range, [0081]), and a second determination unit that determines a time width that is a size of the evaluation period, based on all or a part of the reference information (preset period, [0077]; reference range, [0081], [0146]); wherein the reference information includes at least one of information for specifying a type of the image sequence, information for specifying an examiner, or information for specifying a type of the freeze operation (retrospective/prospective image range, [0072]; heart ultrasound, [0074]); wherein the reference information is first reference information, and the selection unit evaluates each image constituting the image group based on second reference information indicating the status of the ultrasonic examination ([0085]); wherein the second reference information includes at least one of information for specifying a type of the image sequence or information for specifying an examiner (retrospective/prospective image range, [0072]; heart ultrasound, [0074]).
Shin fails to show wherein a center and time length of the evaluation period are determined based on a current examiner that performs the freeze operation, a current image type of the image sequence, and a current type of the freeze operation.
Chiang discloses devices and methods for ultrasound monitoring. Chiang teaches wherein a center and time length of the evaluation period are determined based on a current examiner that performs the freeze operation, a current image type of the image sequence, and a current type of the freeze operation (optimized presets customized for different users, different patients, image types, probe types, measurement types for the freeze operation having a center and time length of an evaluation period; [0530]-[0536]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Shin to utilize preset parameters when a freeze operation is performed as taught by Chiang, as Chiang teaches that a user can create additional presets to store sets of image control settings for specific kinds of exams, and customized presets minimizes the number of settings a user must change each time a user performs a specific ultrasound exam ([0532]). Furthermore, it would be within the level of one of ordinary skill in the art, without undue experimentation, to utilize preset parameters corresponding to any number of variables related to the imaging procedure, including a center and time length of the evaluation period, where a center and time length should be selected to sufficiently analyze the image and perform the measurements as desired by Chiang, depending on the user’s preference. It would be desirable for the user to control the length of time which the image is frozen, where different users may prefer more or less time to analyze the image, and depending on the number of cardiac measurements being performed as described by Chiang ([0528]).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2024/0206857; hereinafter Shin) and Chiang et al. (US 2021/0015456; hereinafter Chiang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kibe (US 2023/0293151).
Shin fails to show a generation unit that generates a guide image including a first display element indicating the evaluation period and a second display element indicating a time point corresponding to the recommended image, wherein the recommended image and the guide image are displayed on the display unit.
Kibe discloses an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus. Kibe teaches a generation unit that generates a guide image including a first display element indicating the evaluation period and a second display element indicating a time point corresponding to the recommended image, wherein the recommended image and the guide image are displayed on the display unit ([0073]-[0075], [0079]-[0080]; Fig. 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Shin and Chiang to display an evaluation period and time point corresponding to a recommended image as taught Kibe, in order to provide the user with additional context regarding a specific timepoint at which the image is stable such as an end diastolic time point, to thereby improve the accuracy of the diagnosis.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shin et al. (US 2024/0206857; hereinafter Shin) and Chiang et al. (US 2021/0015456; hereinafter Chiang) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Urness (US 2014/0187934).
Shin fails to show wherein the memory stores a lookup table in which a past reference time and a past time width are registered for each combination of an examiner, an image type, and a type of a freeze operation, and wherein the at least one processor inputs the current examiner, the current image type, and the current type of the freeze operation method into the lookup table and receives the center and the time length of the evaluation period as outputs of the lookup table.
Urness discloses systems and methods for configuring a medical device. Urness teaches wherein the memory stores a lookup table in which a past reference time and a past time width are registered for each combination of an examiner, an image type, and a type of a freeze operation, and wherein the at least one processor inputs the current examiner, the current image type, and the current type of the freeze operation method into the lookup table and receives the center and the time length of the evaluation period as outputs of the lookup table (DICOM tag; lookup table stored in memory that correlates keywords with one or more preset configurations, [0035]; [0052] Fig. 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the combined invention of Shin and Chiang to utilize a lookup table stored in memory as taught by Urness, in order to minimize time and improve accuracy during the procedure by efficiently accessing optimum parameters corresponding to the type of examination and the scan to be performed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claim(s) 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.
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 JONATHAN CWERN whose telephone number is (571)270-1560. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christopher Koharski can be reached at (571) 272-7230. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN CWERN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights