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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-17 in the reply filed on March 19, 2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In order to be clear and easily understood, the limitation “generate, based on the sensing data, a body marker and a probe marker, the body marker representing a scanning part of the object and the probe marker being positioned on the body marker to represent a position of the probe on the scanning part of the object” should be “generate, based on the sensing data, a body marker and a probe marker, wherein the body marker representing a scanning part of the object, and wherein the probe marker being positioned on the body marker to represent a position of the probe on the scanning part of the object.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-17 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.
In re claims 1 and 17, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “receive sensing data generated by detecting at least one part of the object and the probe from a sensing apparatus through the communication module” are.
Does the limitation actually mean:
a) receive sensing data generated by 1) detecting at least one part of the object and 2) the probe from a sensing apparatus through the communication module; OR
b) receive sensing data generated by detecting 1) at least one part of the object and 2) the probe from a sensing apparatus through the communication module; OR
c) receive sensing data generated by detecting at least one part of 1) the object and 2) the probe from a sensing apparatus through the communication module; OR
d) receive sensing data from a sensing apparatus through the communication module, wherein the sensing data is generated by detecting 1) at least one part of the object and 2) the probe.
Which one? Or some other interpretation.
Furthermore, it is unclear what apparatus “from a sensing apparatus through the communication module” is modifying. Is it modifying the probe or the object or both, or modifying “receive”?
Still furthermore, it is unclear if a sensing apparatus is actually required in claim 1, when claim 17 which is further modifying claim now requires “the sensing apparatus.” If in claim 1, a sensing apparatus is NOT a required limitation, then what is the scope of the claim limitation “receive sensing data generated by detecting at least one part of the object and the probe from a sensing apparatus through the communication module” are? Should the limitation be “receive sensing data generated by detecting at least one part of the object and the probe”?
In re claim 14, it is unclear what further narrowing apparatus would limit the scanning part to a breast. All apparatus of claim 1 is capable of scanning the breast.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 10, 12-15, 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Razzaque; Sharif (US 2017/0024903, hereinafter Razzaque ‘903).
In re claims 1 and 17, Razzaque ‘903 teaches ultrasound imaging apparatus comprising:
a probe configured to transmit an ultrasound signal to an object and detect an echo signal reflected from the object (fig. 5A, 312, 0047);
a display (fig. 5A, 502; 0062-0067);
a communication module (0092-0093);
a memory storing at least one instruction (0092-0093); and
at least one processor (0092-0094) configured to execute the at least one instruction to
generate a first ultrasound image from ultrasound data generated by the probe (0050),
receive sensing data generated by detecting at least one part of the object and the probe from a sensing apparatus through the communication module (0062-0065; 0068, 0070-0076), note that claim 17 is “[t]he ultrasound imaging apparatus of claim 1, further comprising the sensing apparatus.”
generate, based on the sensing data, a body marker (0047-0050, 304, 306, 318) and a probe marker (0049-0050), the body marker representing a scanning part of the object and the probe marker being positioned on the body marker to represent a position of the probe on the scanning part of the object (0049-0050),
display the first ultrasound image, the body marker, and the probe marker on the display (fig. 5A, 502, 550), and
change the body marker based on at least one of a shape, a type, or a scanning direction of the scanning part or a patient's position (0079).
In re claim 2, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to update the body marker and the probe marker based on the sensing data (0013), synchronize (0050, 0051, 0060, 0066, 0089, when it is real-time, concurrently, or simultaneously, all displays are synchronized to be displayed) the body marker, the probe marker, and the ultrasound image with each other, and display the body marker, the probe marker, and the ultrasound image (0046, 0054, 0079, 0084).
In re claim 3, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to select, based on the sensing data (0013, 0014), a candidate body marker from among a plurality of candidate body markers as a body marker (0047, 0054, 0055, identify one or more obstructing objects within the volumetric medical image), and locate the probe marker on the selected body marker (0050), wherein the plurality of candidate body markers are expressed differently according to at least one among a shape, a type, or a scanning direction of the scanning part or a patient's position (0057-0060, different path/scanning path/direction).
In re claim 4, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the body marker and the probe marker are generated by the sensing apparatus (0072, camera-based tracking; 0075, position sensing region), and the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to receive the body marker and the probe marker generated by the sensing apparatus through the communication module (0071-0075; 0092-0093), and display the received body marker and the received probe marker on the display (fig. 5A, 502, 0083).
In re claim 5, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to synchronize an operation time of the sensing apparatus with an operation time of the ultrasound imaging apparatus, synchronize an acquisition time of the sensing data with an acquisition time of the first ultrasound image (0050, 0051, 0060, 0066, 0089, when it is real-time, concurrently, or simultaneously, they are all synchronize, and all displays are synchronized to be displayed), and display the body marker and the probe marker generated from the synchronized sensing data together with the first ultrasound image (0046, 0054, 0079, 0084).
In re claim 6, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to synchronize the body marker, the probe marker, and the first ultrasound image with each other by using time information included in the sensing data and time information included in the first ultrasound image (0050, 0051, 0060, 0066, 0089, when it is real-time, concurrently, or simultaneously, time information would be the same time, and they are synchronize to be displayed together).
In re claim 10, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein a position and an orientation of the probe marker on the body marker are defined based on an anatomical feature of the body marker (0047-0051).
In re claim 12, teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to generate a Graphic User Interface (GUI) view that displays the body marker and the ultrasound image in such a way as to overlap the body marker with the ultrasound image (fig. 3, fig. 5A; ultrasound fan area is overlap with 318, 0047; 0050), and display the GUI view on the display (fig. 5A, fig. 5B).
In re claim 13, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to display, on the body marker, a scan area indicator indicating an area scanned by the probe (0027, 0044, 0045, fig. 2, 212, fig. 5A, ultrasound fan area).
In re claim 14, this system is capable of scanning such that wherein the scanning part is a breast (0022, it can do on chest and furthermore, Applicant has not claimed any other apparatus feature that would be different than claim 1 or limit the apparatus of claim 1 from scanning the breast).
In re claim 15, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the body marker comprises a three-dimensional body marker (0048-0052, 0069, 0070, 3D).
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.
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.
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) 7 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaque ‘903 in view of Jones et al. (US 2018/0012416, hereinafter Jones ‘416).
In re claim 7, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the sensing apparatus comprises a glass device (0081) and HMD (0087) but fails to teach including a detecting sensor, and the detecting sensor includes at least one of an image sensor, an infrared sensor, a thermal imaging camera, an optical camera, a stereo camera, or an ultrasonic sensor.
Jones ‘416 teaches a glass device (0027-0029) including a detecting sensor, and the detecting sensor includes at least one of an image sensor, an infrared sensor, a thermal imaging camera, an optical camera, a stereo camera, or an ultrasonic sensor (0046, 0052, 0053).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Razzaque ‘903 to include the features of Jones ‘416 in order to improve the efficiency, productivity, throughput, and/or accuracy, and/or safety of the wearer's performance of a medical procedure, and can reduce mental fatigue by reducing or eliminating a need for the wearer to reference remote display devices haying substantial angular offsets during a medical procedure.
In re claim 16, Razzaque ‘903 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to transmit the first ultrasound image to the sensing apparatus, through the communication module, and the sensing apparatus is configured to display the body marker and the first ultrasound image (0047-0050, 304, 306, the fan area of ultrasound, 318), fail to teach as Augmented Reality (AR) objects.
Jones ‘416 teaches display as AR objects with HMD that can display acquired video and images (0082-0086, etc.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Razzaque ‘903 to include the features of Jones ‘416 in order to improve the efficiency, productivity, throughput, and/or accuracy, and/or safety of the wearer's performance of a medical procedure, and can reduce mental fatigue by reducing or eliminating a need for the wearer to reference remote display devices haying substantial angular offsets during a medical procedure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaque ‘903 and Jones ‘416 in view of Silva et al. (US 2023/0341932, hereinafter Silva ‘932).
In re claim 8, Razzaque ‘903 teaches the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to update the body marker and the probe marker based on the sensing data while receiving the sensing data (0079, furthermore, the real-time function in 0050 would allow the feature of update here.).
Razzaque ‘903 fails to explicitly teach “stop updating the body marker and the probe marker while reception of the sensing data stops.” However, it would have been obvious as a common sense or a design choice that when nothing is receive, nothing needs to be updated. Furthermore, when the system is turned off (i.e. reception of the sensing data stops), the system cannot be updated (i.e. stop updating anything).
Furthermore, Razzaque ‘903 fails to teach wherein the glass device is configured to transmit the sensing data to the ultrasound imaging apparatus while a user's gaze is directed toward the scanning part, and stop transmitting the sensing data to the ultrasound imaging apparatus while the user's gaze is directed toward another part except for the scanning part.
Silva ’932 teaches:
the processing system 100 provide user input information to the display monitor 310 to update the user interface based on the user input and the position of the cursor 350. As an example, the user performs the user input to start or stop a mapping or registration procedure. Instead of using a mouse or keyboard to interact with a user interface on the display monitor, the user can start or stop the procedure using hands-free input by directing the user's gaze to a virtual button (e.g., an augmented reality graphic) displayed by the HMD 110, or to a button on the display monitor (where the cursor tracks the user's gaze direction as indicated by the marker 340 shown in FIG. 3). Instead of a using a mouse click or pressing a keyboard key, the user provides a hands-free input such as a wink or blink to indicate a selection of a virtual button or a button on the display monitor.
Hence, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Razzaque ‘903 and Jones ‘416 to include the virtual button features (which is NOT the scanning part, body part) of Silva ’932 to control the start and stop function of a system of sending data in order to provide a hands-free input such as a wink or blink to indicate a selection of a virtual button or a button on the display monitor for easy operation.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaque ‘903 in view of Hattori et al. (US 2022/0351078, hereinafter Hattori ‘078).
In re claim 9, Razzaque ‘903 fails to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to input the sensing data to a first artificial intelligence model to obtain the body marker, wherein the sensing data is input to the first artificial intelligence model in a form of a one-dimensional array.
Hattori ‘078 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to input the sensing data to a first artificial intelligence model to obtain the body marker (fig. 8), wherein the sensing data is input to the first artificial intelligence model in a form of a one-dimensional array (0051, 0055-0056).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Razzaque ‘903 to include the features of Hattori ‘078 in order to implement creations of a classifier capable of identifying an object (for example, a tissue or a cell) in an image with high accuracy and a learning image database including an image contributing to a continuous improvement in identification accuracy of the classifier.
Claim(s) 11, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Razzaque ‘903 in view of Kamiyama et al. (US 2007/0239006, hereinafter Kamiyama ‘006).
In re claim 11, Razzaque ‘903 fails to teach wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to stop displaying the probe marker in response to determining, based on the sensing data, that the probe deviates from the scanning part.
Kamiyama ‘006 teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to execute the at least one instruction to stop displaying the probe marker in response to determining, based on the sensing data, that the probe deviates from the scanning part (0121, note that acoustic coupler is attached to scan part, i.e. breast, see 0060).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Razzaque ‘903 to include the features of Hattori ‘078 in order to prevent drawing and recording of unintended traces.
In re claim 14, Kamiyama ‘006 teaches wherein the scanning part is a breast (0012-0015, 0060-0063.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM EST.
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 M 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights