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 remarks regarding the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been considered however 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been invoked even though the claim limitation cited below does not use the word “means”. An input device is recited in claim 10 as being configured to receive an input and the limitation is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function therefore an input device invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
An input device configured to receive an input in claim 10
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
An input device is disclosed in the specification in [0054]: “The input device 142 may include a keyboard, a mouse, a trackball, a touchpad, one or more physical buttons, and the like. Optionally, the display apparatus 138 may be a touch screen display apparatus that includes at least one part of the input device 142”. Therefore the input device will be interpreted as a keyboard, a mouse, a trackball, a touchpad, one or more physical buttons or a touch screen.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-13 and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, the last two lines of claims 1, 10, and 15 recite “the controlling comprising controlling a cursor of the external device to move between the first window and the second window”. However this limitation is not disclosed in the current application. The specification only discloses that the cursor can be moved on a “display apparatus of the ultrasound imaging apparatus out of an edge of the display apparatus towards the external device” to switch the input device for control of a user interface of the external device. The specification also discloses in [0078] “restricting a cursor corresponding to the trackball or the touch pad within the controllable region”. The specification does not disclose controlling a cursor of the external device to move between the first window and the second window. Fig. 4 shows the first and second window of the external device however in the description of Fig. 4 in [0098] it is disclosed “a cursor 413 corresponding to the trackball (or the touch pad) of the input device 412 may be restricted within the controllable region 424”. The specification does not disclose a measurement mode or any reasoning for the cursor to move from the second window [control region] to the first window [region where ultrasound image is displayed]. Therefore the limitation is considered to be new matter. Dependent claims are also rejected due to their dependency.
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 1, 2, 5, 7-11, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20240008852) and further in view of Moon (US 20190038260) and Amthor (WO 2024028235).
Regarding claims 1, 10, and 15, Lee discloses a method of controlling an ultrasound imaging apparatus ([0002] – “an ultrasound diagnosis system and a diagnosis method capable of remotely diagnosing ultrasound”), the method comprising: [claim 1]
an ultrasound imaging apparatus ([0073] – “FIG. 1 is a block diagram illustrating a configuration of an ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 10”), comprising: an input device configured to receive an input ([0093] – “receive a control signal from the input unit 170”); a memory storing instructions ([0093] – “include a memory configured to store a program or data for performing a function of the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100”); and a processor configured to execute the instructions ([0093] – “a processor configured to process a program or data”) to: [claim 10]
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium for storing a computer program that, when executed by a computer, causes the computer to execute the method ([0117] – “The controller 120 may include a memory configured to store a program or data for performing a function of the ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100”) of: [claim 15]
establishing a communication connection with an external device ([0094] – “The ultrasound diagnosis apparatus 100 may include the communication unit 160 and be connected with an external device…through the communication unit 160”);
transmitting ultrasound data to the external device via the communication connection ([0188] – “In order for the remote device 720 to display a display part 722…corresponding to display data which is real-time image information of the main panel 712…the main body 710 independently transmits, among the display data…at least each information corresponding to the display data…to the remote device 720…ultrasound image displayed on the main panel 712”);
displaying, on the external device, a first window and a second window, the first window displaying an image based on the ultrasound data and the second window displaying a control region ([0188] – “remote device 720 to display a display part 722, a first controller 724, and a second controller 726 respectively corresponding to display data which is real-time image information of the main panel 712, first control data which is real-time image information of the touch panel 714, and second control data which is a virtual control panel corresponding to the control panel 716”);
receiving, via the communication connection, user interface information about the ultrasound data, the user interface information being generated on a display interface of the external device ([0184] – “receive the marker information for measurement input to at least one of the display part 722, the first controller 724, and the second controller 726 of the remote device 720 and display on the main panel 712”); and
Conversely Lee does not teach in response to generation of a switching instruction, switching an input device of the ultrasound imaging apparatus to control operations of the external device, the controlling comprising controlling a cursor of the external device to move between the first window and the second window.
However Moon discloses in response to generation of a switching instruction, switching an input device of the ultrasound imaging apparatus to control operations of the external device ([0380] – “the first user may select a switching button 3050 configured to switch to the communication mode in the electronic device…when the basic diagnosis mode is switched to the communication mode…additionally provide a drawing tool for memo or drawing. According to an embodiment, the first user may provide an intuitively explain related to the treatment to the second user through memo input or drawing on the displayed ultrasound image through the drawing tool.”).
Moon is an analogous art considering it is in the field of diagnostic imaging to identify lesions.
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 the method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Lee to incorporate the switching instruction of Moon to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to focus on performing the ultrasound image acquisition before providing the two way transmission and reception that may distract the individual performing the imaging.
Conversely Lee and Moon do not teach the controlling comprising controlling a cursor of the external device to move between the first window and the second window.
However Amthor discloses the controlling comprising controlling a cursor of the external device to move between the first window and the second window (pg. 7 lines 20-25 – “It will be appreciated that the screen mirroring data stream 18 carries the content presented on the display device 24’ of the medical imaging device controller 10. The communication link 14 allows for screen sharing between the display device 24 in the remote service center 4 and the display device 24' in the medical imaging device bay 3. The GUI 28' includes one or more dialog screens, including, for example, an examination/scan selection dialog screen, a scan settings dialog screen, an acquisition monitoring dialog screen, among others”, pg. 12 lines 14-15 – “the local operator LO can interact with the overlay elements on the ROCC device 8 using the local pointer device (mouse etc.)”, as seen in Fig. 4 annotations [overlay elements] can be made on images, therefore Amthor teaches screen mirroring of a GUI that includes a scan settings dialog screen and an acquisition monitoring dialog screen and also discloses that the mouse of the local operator can be used to interact with the elements therefore it can be interpreted that mouse [cursor] can be used to control the scan settings dialog screen and interact with the overlay elements on the image while screen sharing).
Amthor is an analogous art considering it is in the field of a remote device to view ultrasound images.
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 the method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Lee to incorporate the controlling of a cursor to move between two windows of Amthor to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it allows an individual at a remote location to see the controls and annotations being made in real-time which may aid in understanding of why certain settings were chosen or why certain annotations were made.
Regarding claims 2, 11, and 16, Lee, Moon, and Amthor disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1, 10, and 15.
Conversely Lee does not teach wherein the generation of the switching instruction is based on at least one of the following:
moving a cursor of the input device on a display apparatus of the ultrasound imaging apparatus out of an edge of the display apparatus towards the external device;
operating a switch button in the input device; and
determining, using an image capture apparatus, that a line of sight of a user is directed to the external device.
However Moon discloses wherein the generation of the switching instruction is based on at least one of the following means:
moving a cursor of the input device on a display apparatus of the ultrasound imaging apparatus out of an edge of the display apparatus towards the external device;
operating a switch button in the input device ([0380] – “the first user may select a switching button 3050 configured to switch to the communication mode in the electronic device”); and
determining, using an image capture apparatus, that a line of sight of a user is directed to the external device.
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 the method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Lee to incorporate the switching instruction using a switch button of Moon to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to focus on performing the ultrasound image acquisition before providing the two way transmission and reception that may distract the individual performing the imaging.
Regarding claim 5, Lee, Moon, and Amthor disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Lee further discloses wherein the input device comprises at least one of a trackball, a keyboard, a touch pad, and a touch screen ([0105] – “the user input may include an input for manipulating a button, a keypad, a mouse, a trackball, a jog switch, a knob, etc., an input for touching a touch pad or a touch screen”).
Regarding claim 7, Lee, Moon, and Amthor disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 5.
Conversely Lee does not teach wherein the input device comprises a touch screen, and the touch screen controlling the user interface of the external device comprises:
projecting the user interface information of the external device onto the touch screen.
However Moon discloses wherein the input device comprises a touch screen, and the touch screen controlling the user interface of the external device ([0150] – “The touch screen 630 may provide an input/output interface between the electronic device 400 and the user”) comprises:
projecting the user interface information of the external device onto the touch screen (Fig. 31, [0150] – “The touch screen 630”, [0380] – “When user input by the switching button is detected, the electronic device may switch from the basic diagnosis mode to the communication mode and display a corresponding GUI”).
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 the method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Lee to incorporate the touch screen and projecting of interface information of Moon to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow a patient to view drawings and memos provided by a doctor while the doctor is providing the drawings and memos which may lead to a better understanding of a diagnosis or treatment by the patient.
Regarding claim 8, Lee, Moon, and Amthor disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Lee further discloses wherein the display interface of the external device is configured to be touch-operable ([0094] – “connected with an external device (e.g., a server, a medical device, a portable device (smartphones, tablet PCs, wearable devices, etc.))”, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vast majority of modern smartphones available at the time of Lees invention rely on touchscreens as an interface for input and display).
Regarding claim 9, Lee, Moon, and Amthor disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claims 1 and 8.
Lee further discloses wherein the external device comprises an image capture apparatus ([0094] – “connected with an external device (e.g., a server, a medical device, a portable device (smartphones, tablet PCs, wearable devices, etc.))”, one with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the vast majority of smart phones available at the time of the invention of Lee were known to have both front facing and rear facing cameras).
Claims 3, 4, 12, 13, 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee (US 20240008852), Moon (US 20190038260), and Amthor (WO 2024028235) as applied to claims 2, 11, and 16 above, and further in view of Yang (US 20210203878).
Regarding claims 3, 12, and 17, Lee, Moon, and Amthor disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1, 2, 10, 11, 15 and 16.
As cited above Lee teaches the input device controlling the external device conversely Lee does not teach wherein the determining, using an image capture apparatus, that a line of sight of a user is directed to the external device comprises:
acquiring the line of sight of the user using the image capture apparatus, and
based on a determination that the line of sight is directed to the external device, causing the […] control the external device.
However Yang discloses wherein the determining, using an image capture apparatus, that a line of sight of a user is directed to the external device ([0245] – “the display device 400 may detect the view of the user, based on the image for the user (S1710)”, [0253] – “when the view of the user detected in operation S1710 is changed from the display device 400 to the mobile device 500, the processor 310 may terminate outputting of the video calling screen image in operation S270, and may control the video calling screen image to be output by the mobile device 500”) comprises:
acquiring the line of sight of the user using the image capture apparatus ([0245] – “the display device 400 may detect the view of the user, based on the image for the user (S1710)”), and
based on a determination that the line of sight is directed to the external device, causing the […] control the external device ([0253] – “when the view of the user detected in operation S1710 is changed from the display device 400 to the mobile device 500, the processor 310 may terminate outputting of the video calling screen image in operation S270, and may control the video calling screen image to be output by the mobile device 500”).
Yang is an analogous art considering it is in the field of communication between two devices.
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 the method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Yang to incorporate the line of sight determination for changing control of Yang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow the system to be more hands free and therefore easier to use.
Regarding claims 4, 13, and 18, Lee, Moon, Amthor, and Yang disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16 and 17.
As cited above Lee teaches the input device controlling the external device and the ultrasound imaging apparatus conversely Lee does not teach wherein the determining, by using an image capture apparatus, that a line of sight of a user is directed to the […second] device further comprises:
based on a determination that the line of sight is not directed to the external device, causing […] to control the […first device].
However Yang discloses wherein the determining, by using an image capture apparatus, that a line of sight of a user is directed to the […second] device ([0245] – “the display device 400 may detect the view of the user, based on the image for the user (S1710)”, [0253] – “when the view of the user detected in operation S1710 is changed from the display device 400 to the mobile device 500”) further comprises:
based on a determination that the line of sight is not directed to the external device, causing […] to control the […first device] ([0253] – “when the view of the user detected in operation S1710 is changed from the display device 400 to the mobile device 500, the processor 310 may terminate outputting of the video calling screen image in operation S270, and may control the video calling screen image to be output by the mobile device 500”, therefore because the termination of outputting of the video calling screen image only happens when the view of the user is changed to the mobile device it would be obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to not terminate the output on display device 400 if the view is not directed to the mobile device).
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 the method, apparatus, and non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of Yang to incorporate the line of sight determination for changing control of Yang to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow the system to be more hands free and therefore easier to use.
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 RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights