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 Amendment
Claims 13-16 are added, and claims 1-16 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 10/22/2025.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 01/21/2026 with respect to claim 1 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.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Nakamura is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 3-12, and 16 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Lyman is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 2 and 13-15 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (US 20120183191 A1, published July 19, 2012), hereinafter referred to as Nakamura.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claims 10 and 12, Nakamura teaches a method for controlling an ultrasound scanning system (Fig. 1; see para. 0077 – “The imaging modality 1 includes an apparatus that generates three dimensional image data that represent three dimensional images of examination target portions of subjects by imaging these portions, attaches data defined by DICOM standards to the image data, and outputs the image data. Specific examples of the imaging modality 1 include…an ultrasound imaging apparatus…”), comprising:
acquiring an ultrasound scanning-related document, comprising an ultrasound scanning guidance for at least one tissue to be scanned (Fig. 2; see para. 0093 – “The keyword extracting section 22 searches the opinion information [ultrasound scanning guidance] of the image observation report RPT [ultrasound scanning-related document] to judge whether extraction target terms registered in the keyword table 21 are present therein.”; see para. 0032 – “The anatomical structures which are correlated with the image processing conditions and display conditions may include those having various viewpoints and units, such as imaged portions, organs, and tissue.”);
processing the ultrasound scanning-related document using a natural language processing model, comprising processing the ultrasound scanning guidance (Fig. 2; see para. 0093 – “When the software program is booted up, the keyword extracting section 22 [natural language processing model] analyzes opinion information (the contents displayed in the opinion regions of FIG. 3A and FIG. 3B) of the image observation report RPT [ultrasound scanning-related document] using the keyword table 21, and extracts keywords K1 and K2, which are factors for determining a display protocol [DP].”; see para. 0094 – “Here, the method for extracting keywords is not limited to that described above. Known natural language processing techniques which are employed by search engines, etc., may be applied, for example.”);
generating an ultrasound scanning protocol for ultrasound scanning of the at least one tissue to be scanned on the basis of the processing the ultrasound scanning guidance (Fig. 2; see para. 0097 – “Next, the display protocol determining section 24 refers to the display protocol table 23 using the keywords K1 and K2 extracted by the keyword extracting section 22, and specifies a display protocol [ultrasound scanning protocol] correlated to the keywords K1 and K2 [ultrasound scanning guidance].”); and
configuring the ultrasound scanning protocol for ultrasound scanning of the at least one tissue in the ultrasound scanning system (Fig. 2; see para. 0102 – “The image processing section 26 administers image processes based on the display protocol DP determined by the display protocol determining section 24 with the image data I1 as input, and outputs processed image data I11, I12, I13, . . . . [configured ultrasound scanning protocol for ultrasound scanning tissue]”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Nakamura further teaches wherein processing the ultrasound scanning guidance comprises: performing extraction on the content of the ultrasound scanning guidance at least once, and generating several steps for ultrasound scanning of the at least one tissue to be scanned (Fig. 2; see para. 0093 – “The keyword extracting section 22 searches the opinion information [ultrasound scanning guidance] of the image observation report RPT [ultrasound scanning-related document] to judge whether extraction target terms registered in the keyword table 21 are present therein.”; see para. 0098 – “As illustrated in FIG. 5B, the display protocol table 23 registers display protocols correlated with display protocol ID's that identify the display protocols, keywords…the contents of image processing (the items IMAGE PROCESS 1 and IMAGE PROCESS 2) [several steps for ultrasound scanning].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Nakamura further teaches wherein processing the ultrasound scanning guidance further comprises: in response to being operated, further extracting, augmenting, or modifying the several steps (see para. 0096 – “Note that maintenance such as registration, changes, and deletion of keywords [modifying ultrasound scanning guidance] in the keyword table 21 is possible through a predetermined GUI according to the needs of practice group physicians as necessary.”; see para. 0099 – “Note that it is possible for users such as practice group physicians to perform maintenance, such as registration, change, and deletion, to the display protocols [modifying several steps for ultrasound scanning] as necessary.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 5, Nakamura further teaches wherein processing the ultrasound scanning guidance further comprises:
extracting keywords in each of the steps (see para. 0105 – “When an operation to initiate detailed observation of a desired image is performed, the keyword extracting section 22 extracts keywords K1, K2, . . . that represent information related to anatomical structures and information related to diseases from the image observation report RPT using the keyword table 21.”); and
categorizing the keywords or each of the steps among preset categories (see para. 0105 – “Then, the display protocol determining section 24 automatically selects a display protocol DP that matches the keywords K1, K2, . . . from the display protocol table 23 [preset categories].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 6, Nakamura further teaches wherein the preset categories comprise at least one of a target tissue, probe movement, and configuring an ultrasound scanning parameter (see para. 0098 – “As illustrated in FIG. 5B, the display protocol table 23 [preset categories] registers display protocols correlated with display protocol ID's that identify the display protocols, keywords, region ID's that identify regions in the screen, positional information of the regions (the coordinates of the upper left corner, the width (W), and the height (H)), conditions such as the modality of the images to be displayed in the regions (the item IMAGE TO BE OBTAINED), the contents of image processing (the items IMAGE PROCESS 1 and IMAGE PROCESS 2).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Nakamura wherein the ultrasound scanning protocol comprises several steps for ultrasound scanning of the at least one tissue to be scanned (see para. 0098 – “As illustrated in FIG. 5B, the display protocol table 23 registers display protocols correlated with display protocol ID's that identify the display protocols, keywords…the contents of image processing (the items IMAGE PROCESS 1 and IMAGE PROCESS 2) [several steps for ultrasound scanning].”), and the method further comprises:
determining a step in the ultrasound scanning protocol to which a current ultrasound scan corresponds; and providing scanning assistance for the current ultrasound scan (see para. 0124 – “In addition, a region 40 for displaying the contents of the image processing conditions applied by the image processing section 26, that is, the contents of the image processing conditions [steps in ultrasound scanning protocol] determined by the display protocol determining section 24 may be provided in the pop up window 39 as illustrated in FIG. 15…Further, a configuration may be adopted in which operations to change the selected radio buttons (the hatched rectangle) are received, and the image processing section 26 regenerates an image based on the changed image processing conditions [scanning assistance]. In this case, the display screen generating section 27 may update the displayed image to the regenerated image.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 8, Nakamura further teaches wherein providing scanning assistance for the current ultrasound scan comprises at least one of:
in response to the corresponding step being related to configuring ultrasound scanning parameter, automatically configuring the ultrasound scanning system;
in response to the corresponding step being related to probe movement, providing and displaying a guide for the probe movement; and
in response to the corresponding step being related to a target tissue, automatically identifying and evaluating an image of the current ultrasound scan (see para. 0046 – “In addition, the display protocols are automatically determined based on anatomical structures and diseases which are mentioned in the image observation reports.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Nakamura further teaches wherein the automatically identifying and evaluating an image of the current ultrasound scan is performed using an artificial intelligence model (see para. 0036 – “Alternatively, display protocols may be generated based on the anatomical structures and/or the information related to diseases extracted from the image observation report [which includes image 36, Fig. 3A] information by employing a known technique, such as machine learning [artificial intelligence model].” Where employing an artificial intelligence model is inherently automatic).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Nakamura further teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning-related document is from at least one of a removable storage medium, a local area network, and a cloud server (see para. 0080 – “…requesting the image observation report server 7 to view image observation reports, and displaying image observation reports received from the image observation report server 7.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 16, Nakamura further teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning-related document is imported into the ultrasound scanning system by a user (see para. 0080 – “…requesting [importing] the image observation report server 7 to view image observation reports, and displaying image observation reports received from the image observation report server 7.”).
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.
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 2 and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of Lyman et al. (US 20220051771 A1, published February 17, 2022), hereinafter referred to as Lyman.
Regarding claim 2, Nakamura teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Nakamura teaches processing an ultrasound scanning-related document, but does not explicitly teach where the document is at least one of a user manual, an ultrasound scanning-related guideline, and an ultrasound scanning-related paper.
Whereas, Lyman, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning-related document comprises at least one of a user manual, an ultrasound scanning-related guideline, and an ultrasound scanning-related paper (Fig. 12E; see para. 0315 – “…the medical scan viewing system can further operate, via processing system 3106 to retrieve from the resource database 3112 a set of guideline recitations and/or one or more publications associated with the at least one abnormality...For each abnormality, links for accessing the appropriate guideline recitations/treatment plans and/or related scholarly article summary/link can be presented as pop-up text, thumbnails or other indicators that, when selected via the interactive interface 3110, result in the corresponding guideline recitations or publication being displayed.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified processing an ultrasound scanning-related document, as disclosed in Nakamura, by having the document be at least one of a user manual, an ultrasound scanning-related guideline, and an ultrasound scanning-related paper, as disclosed in Lyman. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to utilize useful information about treatment trends and standards for particular abnormalities from scholarly articles, literature, journal papers and/or other publications, as taught in Lyman (see para. 0298).
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Lyman further teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning-related document is a user manual (Fig. 12E; see para. 0315 – “…the medical scan viewing system can further operate, via processing system 3106 to retrieve from the resource database 3112 a set of guideline recitations and/or one or more publications associated with the at least one abnormality...For each abnormality, links for accessing the appropriate guideline recitations/treatment plans and/or related scholarly article summary/link can be presented as pop-up text, thumbnails or other indicators that, when selected via the interactive interface 3110, result in the corresponding guideline recitations or publication being displayed.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 14, Lyman further teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning-related document is an ultrasound scanning-related paper (Fig. 12E; see para. 0315 – “…the medical scan viewing system can further operate, via processing system 3106 to retrieve from the resource database 3112 a set of guideline recitations and/or one or more publications associated with the at least one abnormality...For each abnormality, links for accessing the appropriate guideline recitations/treatment plans and/or related scholarly article summary/link can be presented as pop-up text, thumbnails or other indicators that, when selected via the interactive interface 3110, result in the corresponding guideline recitations or publication being displayed.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 15, Lyman further teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning-related document is a research paper that includes a published experiment (Fig. 12E; see para. 0315 – “…the medical scan viewing system can further operate, via processing system 3106 to retrieve from the resource database 3112 a set of guideline recitations and/or one or more publications associated with the at least one abnormality...For each abnormality, links for accessing the appropriate guideline recitations/treatment plans and/or related scholarly article summary/link can be presented as pop-up text, thumbnails or other indicators that, when selected via the interactive interface 3110, result in the corresponding guideline recitations or publication being displayed.”).
The motivation for claims 13-15 was shown previously in claim 2.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Conjeti et al. (US 20230282337 A1, published September 7, 2023) discloses an extraction unit is arranged to generate a first structured medical data object MDO1, for example a DICOM SR object, based on user-generated electronic medical data UMD (Fig. 6; see para. 0280).
Kalafut et al. (US 20190108903 A1, published April 11, 2019) discloses Natural language processing (NLP) techniques can also be employed to search for certain phrases and language that may be contained in a particular digitized image or document and, based on the presence or absence of such language, perform one or more data extraction or information gathering processes, and NLP can be applied to electronic study reports, images, or other documents or voice recordings, among other sources of information (see para. 0078).
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 Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Nyrobi Celestine/Examiner, Art Unit 3798