CTNF 18/884,782 CTNF 83206 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Status of claims: claims 1-9 are pending below. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on September 13, 2024 was filed and considered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 4 and 5 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. 07-34-03 AIA The term “ later ” in claim 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ much later ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear as to what range of frame timing difference would qualify as “later” and therefore it is unclear as to the scope of the claim. This renders the claim unclear and rejected for indefiniteness . The term “much later” and “not satisfied”, and “later” in claim 5 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The terms are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The lack of define parameters is unclear and therefore it is unclear as to the scope of the claim. This renders the claim unclear and rejected for indefiniteness . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) in view of Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650) . Claim 1: Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) teaches the following subject matter: A three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus comprising: an information processing unit that executes processing of acquiring spatial frequency distribution data in a depth direction for one frame in two-dimensional ultrasound image data of a plurality of frames constituting three-dimensional ultrasound image data (0062, 0074-0078, 0084, 0131, especially 0150-0155 and 0188-0193) . Hennersperger et al teaches all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650): processing of performing filter processing, which is based on filter characteristics determined in accordance with the spatial frequency distribution data and characteristics of transmitted ultrasound in a case in which each two-dimensional ultrasound image data is acquired, on each two-dimensional ultrasound image data (0066-0068 detail data is band pass filtered to remove frequency artifacts using a 3D peak detection algorithm within the spatial PSD map of the frequency data) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al are both in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al by Kruger et al regarding spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature provides only frequencies within the physiologic range of interest, leading to higher quality processing signals and improve clinical outcome as disclosed by Kruger et al in paragraph 0066. Claim 2: Kruger et al teach: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing unit searches for a spatial frequency corresponding to a maximal value of a distribution indicated by the spatial frequency distribution data in a search range determined in accordance with a pulse width of the transmitted ultrasound, and obtains, as the filter characteristics, characteristics for suppressing a level of the distribution indicated by the spatial frequency distribution data in a spatial frequency band including the spatial frequency that is searched for (0066-0068 detail data is band pass filtered to remove frequency artifacts using a 3D peak detection algorithm within the spatial PSD map of the frequency data) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) and Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2009/0062654) . Claim 3: Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al teach all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Zhang et al: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein the information processing unit changes the filter characteristics in a case in which the maximal value of the distribution indicated by the spatial frequency distribution data does not satisfy a predetermined condition for the spatial frequency distribution data acquired from the two-dimensional ultrasound image data on which the filter processing has been performed (0077 detail maximum power spectral line is compared to the frequency cutoff range (predetermined condition) and imaging parameters including the filtering parameters are changed based upon the analysis of the output of the processing module) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Zhang et al both in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al by Zhang et al such incorporation enable the changing of filter characteristics based upon the maximum spectral calculation based upon a set cutoff adjusted parameters to achieve higher quality frequency information resulting in tailoring the parameters based upon acquired image data, parameters can be most closely aligned with the real-time image characteristics, leading to better output images and reduced noise as disclosed in Zhang et al in paragraph 0076-0078 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) and Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhang et al (US 2020/0184614) . Claim 4: Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al teach all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Zhang et al: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the information processing unit generates the two-dimensional ultrasound image data in sequence with elapse of time, and performs the filter processing, which is the same as the filter processing on the two-dimensional ultrasound image data of one frame generated earlier, on the two-dimensional ultrasound image data of one frame generated later (0037-0038 detail signal acquisition across multiple frames over time, where spatial characteristic processing unit may be configured to receive the wall filtered Doppler frames and spatially filter each frame to identify low spatial frequency information, while removing high spatial frequency content.”, spatial filter 214 forms a filter processing on sequential frames using the same filter; 0039; 0069-0070 detail processing of the temporally sequential frames to identify low spatial frequency and high temporal frequency content may involve passing each of the temporally sequential frames through a spatial low-pass filter (e.g., a boxcar filter or any other type of spatial low-pass filter) and then passing the spatially filtered frames (also referred to as blurred frames) through a temporal high-pass filter to identify rapidly changing content between the frames) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Zhang et al both in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al by Zhang et al such modified the ultrasound imaging and filter processing to incorporate the sequential frame filtering over time with the same filter because it provides frequency content indicative of tissue and subsequent suppression of tissue motion frequency content leading to higher quality output images as disclosed by Zhang et al in 0038 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) and Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650) and Zhang et al (US 2020/0184614) and as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of Yao et al (US 2013/0184583) . Claim 5: Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Zhang et al teach all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Yao et al: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 4, wherein the information processing unit performs the filter processing in which the filter characteristics are changed on the two-dimensional ultrasound image data of one frame generated much later in a case in which a condition related to an artifact is not satisfied for the two-dimensional ultrasound image data of the one frame generated later (0036-0037 detail Moreover, the rate-of-change calculation unit 32 calculates a rate of change associated with of filter characteristics of the noise reduction filter. The rate of change calculated by the rate-of-change calculation unit 32 is transferred to the graph generation unit 33.” Rate of change of the filter characteristics of the noise reduction filter forms a changing of filter characteristics across frames over time (later); 0070 further detail feature information indicative of dependence of a rate of change in the number of image constituent elements (the number of voxels or the number of pixels) constituting a bloodstream present region included in the ultrasonic Doppler image caused by the noise reduction processing with respect to a change in filter characteristics of the noise reduction filter is generated, whereby features of a distribution of a bloodstream signal included in the ultrasonic Doppler image can be quantitatively extracted) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Zhang et al and Yao et al are in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Zhang et al by Yao et al such incorporating the change in filter characteristics as taught by Yao because it enables higher quality extraction of bloodstream components from the data, leading to improved clinical diagnostics as disclosed by Yao et al in paragraph 0036-0037 and 0070 . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) and Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Huang et al (US 2019/0129020) . Claim 6: Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al teach all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Huang et al: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional ultrasound image data is obtained by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound while performing scanning with a transmission beam of the ultrasound at a predetermined scanning interval, and the information processing unit performs the filter processing on the two-dimensional ultrasound image data in a case in which the scanning interval exceeds a predetermined scanning interval threshold value (0057-0059 detail CPU 42 of the second device B sequentially receives a set of amplified gain-containing digital Doppler shift signal data from the first device A, and the second gain control module 43 performs the first gain algorithm (illustrated in steps S1-S7 of FIG. 4) after a time interval to calculate a new gain command, which is sent to the first gain control module 41 of the CPU 40 via BLE 70. The first gain control module 41 then sends the new gain to the analog gain filter 23 for changing the gain of the analog gain filter 23, such that a subsequent set of amplified digital Doppler shift signal data is adjusted back to be within a predetermined range”, the time interval in which the gain command algorithm occurs forms a predetermined scan interval in which ultrasound scanning occurs. This gain processing filter then occurs and may provide adaptive changes to the gain filter after the scanning interval exceeds the predetermined time interval; claim 14; 0063-0042 provides further details) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Huang et al both in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al by Huang et al provides incorporate the filter processing after a scan interval with adjusted filter properties as taught by Huang because filter adjustments over a scanning period leads to improvement of signal to noise ratios and better image quality as disclosed by Huange et al in 0009, resulting in improve clinical diagnostic outputs. Claim 7: Huang et al further teaches: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 6, wherein the scanning interval threshold value is determined based on the characteristics of the transmitted ultrasound (0036-0037 detail the interval maximum value is determined based upon the received time interval data and subsequent gain adjustment filtering is based upon the analysis; paragraph 0053; 0057-0060) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hennersperger et al (US 2021/0085287) and Kruger et al (US 2020/0163650) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Noguchi (US 2020/0022671) . Claim 8: Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al teach all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Noguchi: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the filter characteristics are characteristics for making an attenuation amount in a spatial frequency band corresponding to a predetermined structure be equal to or less than an attenuation amount limit value (0148-0149 detail MTI filter unit 8 determines that the analysis target data items divided as the third data group among the analysis target data items having correlation coefficients equal to or less than the threshold value are the analysis target data items acquired for the inside of the blood vessels and changes the predetermined filter characteristics such that the amount of attenuation of low-frequency components is reduced. In addition, the MTI filter unit 8 determines that the analysis target data items divided as the fourth data group among the analysis target data items having correlation coefficients equal to or less than the threshold value are the analysis target data items acquired for different tomographic planes and changes the predetermined filter characteristics such that the amount of attenuation of low-frequency components increases”, the threshold value for the MTI filter characteristics are determined based upon the amount of attenuation of frequency components for reduction. This targets the scatterer components for blood flow information processing; 0150) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Noguchi both in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al by Noguchi such the incorporating the attenuation limit threshold value for filtering characteristics of blood flow as taught by Noguchi because it provides an adjustment of frequency components based upon the acquired signals to better isolate target data items such as blood flow scattering components, leading to improved diagnostic outcomes as disclosed by Noguchi in paragraph 0149-0150. Claim 9: Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al teach all the subject matter above, but not the following which is taught by Noguchi: The three-dimensional ultrasound image processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the two-dimensional ultrasound image data is data indicating a B-mode image on which a blood flow image is superimposed (0073-0077, specifically figure 1 and 0076 detail ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1 displays an ultrasound image on the display unit 12 on the basis of the B-mode image signal generated by the image generation unit 6 and the blood flow information of the subject generated by the blood flow information estimation unit 9 and the blood flow information combination unit 10. Here, the ultrasound image is obtained by superimposing a Doppler image, such as a color Doppler image or a power Doppler image, on the B-mode image) . Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al and Noguchi both in the field of image analysis, especially processing of ultrasound images for spatial frequency maximum search and bandpass filtering feature such that the combine outcome is predictable. Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify Hennersperger et al and Kruger et al by Noguchi such the incorporating the superimposing of blood flow in B-mode as taught by Noguchi because it provides an adjustment of frequency components based upon the acquired signals to better isolate target data items such as blood flow scattering components, leading to improved diagnostic outcomes as disclosed by Noguchi in paragraph 0149-0150 . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tamura et al (US 8,579,821) Methods And Apparatus For Ultrasound Imaging - diagnosis of cardiovascular diseases, color Doppler (or color flow) imaging is usually used to visualize blood flow in the heart or blood vessels. Abnormal conditions often increase blood flow velocity in comparison to that under normal conditions. The increased velocity may result in aliasing within a corresponding color Doppler image. Color Doppler uses a pulse ultrasound technology for its spatial sampling capability, which limits the maximum frequency which can be detected without experiencing aliasing. The pulse repetition frequency (PRF), which is also the sampling frequency, sets the maximum frequency limitation. This limitation, in turn, limits the maximum blood flow velocity which can be measured without exhibiting aliasing. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TSUNG-YIN TSAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1671. The examiner can normally be reached 7am-4pm. 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, Bhavesh Mehta can be reached at (571) 272-7453. 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. /TSUNG YIN TSAI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 2 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 3 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 4 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 5 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 6 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 7 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 8 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 9 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 10 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 11 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 12 Art Unit: 2656 Application/Control Number: 18/884,782 Page 13 Art Unit: 2656
Prosecution Insights