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
Applicant's arguments filed 02/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments, rejections under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn. However, claim 1 remains rejected under newly-found reference of Otomaru.
Claims 6-7 have been considered and are rejected under newly-found reference of Kobayashi.
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 7 is 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 7 recites the limitation “the Doppler waveform”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
Rejections under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 02/19/2026.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chono (US 2014/0369564) in view of Otomaru (US 2018/0064422).
Regarding claim 1, Chono teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising: processing circuitry (region-of-interest setting unit 8, [0029]) configured to track, by template matching ([0038]) using a two-dimensional ultrasonic image at a time of collecting Doppler information ([0109] & [0114]), a position of a part (characteristic parts (annulus, valve orifice, etc.), [0114]) where a sample gate (region of interest, [0114], Figure 13) is set to designate a position of a part where Doppler information is collected ([0114]).
However, Chono fails to disclose performing control to display information indicating a matching degree in template matching.
Otomaru teaches performing control to display information indicating a matching degree ([0052]-[0053]) in template matching ([0035]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Chono to include performing control to display information indicating a matching degree in template matching, as taught by Otomaru. This allows the user to understand the result of the template matching calculated by the system.
Regarding claim 2, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to accept a setting operation for the setting the sample gate ([0038] & [0114]).
Regarding claim 4, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause at least one of a numerical value (measurement results, [0125]-[0126]) indicating the accuracy of tracking to be displayed ([0125]-[0126]).
Regarding claim 5, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a display (output/display unit 6, [0029]) to display the position of the part having the highest matching degree in template matching in a discriminable manner in the two-dimensional ultrasonic image ([0122]).
Regarding claim 10, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause a range to which the sample gate is not moved ([0047], [0055], & [0061]) to be displayed on an ultrasonic image ([0122]).
Paragraphs [0047], [0055], & [0061] teach setting the region of interest at the position with the most well-matched template matching for different compression ratios of the image. If any successive compression ratio results in the same position having the highest template matching, then the sample gate will not be moved.
Claim 13 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Regarding claim 14, Chono in view of Otomaru teach a storage medium (storage unit 5, [0032]) storing therein, in a non-transitory manner, a program (programs, [0032]) that causes a computer (region-of-interest setting unit 8, [0029]) to execute the steps of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 15, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause information indicating a high tracking accuracy to be displayed when the matching degree in template matching is equal to or larger than a threshold ([0047], [0055], & [0061]), and cause information indicating a low tracking accuracy when the matching degree in template matching is below the threshold ([0047], [0055], & [0061]).
Paragraphs [0047], [0055], & [0061] teach setting the most well-matched position of template matching as the region of interest. In this case, the highest received value of template matching serves as the threshold, and the value equal to this threshold is the most well-matched position. Any position set as the region of interest indicates to the user that that particular position has a high tracking accuracy and is equal to the threshold. Likewise, any position not set as the region of interest indicates to the user that that particular position has a low tracking accuracy and is below the threshold.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chono in view of Otomaru, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Kobayashi (US 2018/0192996).
Regarding claim 6, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the sample gate to move to the position of the part having the highest matching degree in template matching in the two-dimensional ultrasonic image ([0047], [0055], & [0061]).
Paragraph [0047] teaches that a region of interest is set in the non-compressed image. Paragraphs [0055] & [0061] teach setting the region of interest at the most well-matched positions in images of different compression ratios of the original image. If a different position has a better template matching among the three or more images, then the sample gate will move to a different position.
Regarding the limitation of claim 6 of changing the display form of the Doppler waveform, this Doppler waveform refers to the Doppler waveform introduced in claim 4. However, the rejection of claim 4 does not rely on the limitation regarding the Doppler waveform.
However, Chono in view of Otomaru fail to disclose changing a display form of a Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information in a time section related to movement of the sample gate.
Kobayashi teaches changing a display form of a Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information in a time section related to movement of the sample gate ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Chono and Otomaru to include changing a display form of a Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information in a time section related to movement of the sample gate, as taught by Kobayashi. It is expected that changing the area from which Doppler information is acquired will also change the waveform that is displayed.
Regarding claim 7, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches performing the measurement processing for a section in which the matching degree in template matching is equal to or larger than a threshold ([0047], [0055], & [0061]).
Paragraphs [0047], [0055], & [0061] teach setting the most well-matched position of template matching as the region of interest. In this case, the highest received value of template matching serves as the threshold, and the value equal to this threshold is the most well-matched position.
However, Chono in view of Otomaru fail to disclose that the processing circuitry is further configured to: perform measurement processing on the Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information, and perform the measurement processing for a section in which the Doppler waveform is acquired.
Kobayashi teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to: perform measurement processing on the Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information ([0087]), and perform measurement processing for a section in which the Doppler waveform is acquired ([0087]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Chono and Kobayashi such that the processing circuitry is further configured to: perform measurement processing on the Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information, and perform measurement processing for a section in which the Doppler waveform is acquired, as taught by Kobayashi. This allows the Doppler information to be processed for any given area in the image in question.
Claims 8-9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chono in view of Otomaru, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Yamamoto (US 2019/0216425).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the sample gate to move to the position of the part having the highest matching degree in template matching in the two-dimensional ultrasonic image ([0047], [0055], & [0061]).
However, Chono in view of Otomaru fail to disclose causing the sample gate to move to the position of the part having the highest matching degree in template matching under the condition that a difference between the part having the highest matching degree in template matching and the part where the sample gate is set at the present time exceeds a threshold, wherein the threshold is dynamically changed in accordance with at least one of a size of the sample gate, a width of an ultrasonic beam, and a frame rate.
Yamamoto teaches causing the sample gate (sample gate, [0078]) to move to the position of the part ([0078]) under the condition that a difference between the part having a value (distance d, [0078]) and the part where the sample gate is set at the present time exceeds a threshold ([0078]), wherein the threshold is dynamically changed in accordance with a width of an ultrasonic beam ([0082]).
Although Yamamoto teaches changing the position of the sample gate once it exceeds a distance threshold, Examiner asserts that, with Chono setting the position of the sample gate based on the accuracy of template matching being known in the art, one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that sample gate positions can be changed once a threshold of any value is exceeded.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Chono and Otomaru to include causing the sample gate to move to the position of the part under the condition that a difference between the part having a value and the part where the sample gate is set at the present time exceeds a threshold, wherein the threshold is dynamically changed in accordance with a width of an ultrasonic beam, as taught by Yamamoto. In the context of the matching degree of template matching, setting a threshold prevents the sample gate from rapidly changing over minute differences, allowing the procedure to proceed normally and reducing the amount of distractions for the user. Because the width of the ultrasonic beam determines the overall field-of-view for the image, changing the threshold based on the width of the ultrasonic beam prevents the system from searching for template matching in areas not visible in the image.
Regarding claims 11-12, Chono in view of Otomaru teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Chono further teaches that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause the sample gate to move to the position of the part having the highest matching degree in template matching in the two-dimensional ultrasonic image ([0047], [0055], & [0061]).
However, Chono in view of Otomaru fail to disclose causing the position of the sample gate to move under a condition that a predetermined time has elapsed after the sample gate is moved, wherein the predetermined time is dynamically changed in accordance with at least one of a part, a frame rate, a heartbeat cycle, and a respiration cycle.
Yamamoto teaches causing the position of the sample gate (sample gate, [0078]) to move ([0078]) under a condition that a predetermined time has elapsed after the sample gate is moved ([0077]-[0078]), wherein the predetermined time is dynamically changed in accordance with a frame rate ([0077]).
Paragraph [0078] teaches that detecting the tip of the needle and setting the position of the sample gate are performed “repeatedly”. Paragraph [0077] teaches that these steps are performed frame-by-frame. Therefore, the setting of the sample gate is dependent on the frame rate, as the time of a single frame must elapse before the sample gate is eligible to be moved again.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Chono and Otomaru to include causing the position of the sample gate to move under a condition that a predetermined time has elapsed after the sample gate is moved, wherein the predetermined time is dynamically changed in accordance with a frame rate, as taught by Yamamoto. Designating the frame rate as the time that must elapse before the sample gate can be moved reduces processing power, as no changes can be made at a rate faster than the frame rate.
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 ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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 Raymond can be reached at (572)-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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights