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 08/28/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the amendments to the independent claims, rejections under 35 USC 102 have been reinstated. The rejection of claim 1 does not rely upon Otomaru or Kobayashi, and Examiner asserts that [0114] & [0118] of Chono teach the amended limitation of processing a Doppler waveform. Paragraphs [0125]-[0127], as cited by Applicant in page 9 of Applicant’s arguments, are not relied upon in the rejection of claim 1.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments pages 9-10, that the combination of Chono and Otomaru is not proper. Otomaru is no longer relied upon in the rejection of claim 1, but instead has been incorporated into the rejection of claim 4. Whatever supposed differences exist between Otomaru and Chono are not relevant; Otomaru is only introduced to teach that a value indicating the degree of template matching can be displayed to a user. Chono, in teaching that the most well-matched portion in the template matching can be used as the region of interest, teaches that a matching degree is determined. However, this value is not communicated to the user. Examiner asserts that Otomaru displaying a value of the matching degree cures this deficiency of Chono, and that the combination of Chono and Otomaru is proper.
Applicant argues, see Applicant’s arguments page 10, that the combination of Chono and Kobayashi is not proper. In regards to the claim material of claim 7 being incorporated into claim 1, Kobayashi is no longer relied upon to teach this limitation. Chono alone teaches processing the Doppler waveform.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Rejections under 35 USC 112 have been withdrawn in response to Applicant’s amendments filed 08/28/2026.
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.
(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 1-2, 5, 10, & 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chono (US 2014/0369564).
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]), and perform measurement processing on a portion of a Doppler waveform based on the Doppler information ([0114] & [0118], Figure 13), the portion corresponding to a section in which a result of the tracking by the template matching satisfies a predetermined criterion ([0047]).
Paragraph [0047] of Chono teaches that the most well-matched position of the template matching is set as the region of interest. Thus, it can be assumed that the region of interest of [0114] & [0118] satisfies this predetermined criterion before processing the Doppler waveform.
Regarding claim 2, Chono teaches 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 5, Chono teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 teaches 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 result of the tracking satisfies the predetermined criterion ([0047], [0055], & [0061]), and cause information indicating a low tracking accuracy to be displayed when the result of the tracking does not satisfy the predetermined criterion ([0047], [0055], & [0061]).
Paragraphs [0047], [0055], & [0061] teach setting the most well-matched position of template matching as the region of interest. As discussed in the rejection of claim 1, a position being the most well-matched position is the predetermined criterion. Any position set as the region of interest indicates to the user that that particular position satisfies the predetermined criterion of being the most-well matched position. Likewise, any position not set as the region of interest indicates to the user that that particular position does not satisfy the predetermined criterion.
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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chono, as applied to claim 1, above, in view of Otomaru (US 2018/0064422).
Regarding claim 4, Chono teaches the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1.
However, Chono fails to disclose that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause at least one of a numerical value indicating a degree of matching obtained by the template matching to be displayed.
Otomaru teaches that the processing circuitry (display control unit 110, [0051]) is further configured to cause at least one of a numerical value indicating a degree of matching ([0052]-[0053]) obtained by the template matching ([0035]) to be displayed ([0052]-[0053], Figure 5).
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 such that the processing circuitry is further configured to cause at least one of a numerical value indicating a degree of matching obtained by the template matching to be displayed, as taught by Otomaru. This allows the user to understand the result of the template matching calculated by the system.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chono, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Kobayashi (US 2018/0192996).
Regarding claim 6, Chono teaches 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.
However, Chono fails 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 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.
Claims 8-9 & 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chono, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Yamamoto (US 2019/0216425).
Regarding claims 8-9, Chono teaches 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 fails 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 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 teaches 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 fails 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 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
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 RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights