CTNF 18/894,476 CTNF 83135 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. This Office Action is responsive to communications filed on 09/24/2024 . Claims 1-20 are pending in the instant application. Claims 1 , 11 and 20 are independent . An Office Action on the merits follows here below. Specification The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the patent abstract should be a concise statement that does not recite legal phraseology and should not merely recite an instant claim. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). Appropriate correction is required . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. 35 U.S.C. 101 requires that a claimed invention must fall within one of the four eligible categories of invention (i.e. process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter) and must not be directed to subject matter encompassing a judicially recognized exception as interpreted by the courts. MPEP 2106. The four eligible categories of invention include: (1) process which is an act, or a series of acts or steps, (2) machine which is an concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices, (3) manufacture which is an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand labor or by machinery, and (4) composition of matter which is all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids. MPEP 2106(I). Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 as not falling within one of the four statutory categories of invention because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the instant claims in light of the specification encompasses transitory signals. But, transitory signals are not within one of the four statutory categories (i.e. non-statutory subject matter). See MPEP 2106(I). However, claims directed toward a non-transitory computer readable medium may qualify as a manufacture and make the claim patent-eligible subject matter. MPEP 2106(I). Therefore, amending the claims to recite a “ non-transitory computer-readable medium ” could resolve this issue. Appropriate correction is required . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1 , 9 , 11 , 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20210321974 A1) in combination with Yacoubian (US 20220381556 A1) . Regarding Claim 20: Wang discloses a computer-readable storage medium storing instructions thereon (Refer to para [087]; “a computer-readable storage medium is provided, which may include a program that can be executed by a processor to implement the quantitative analysis method for cardiac motion described in any one of the embodiments of the disclosure.”) that when executed cause one or more processors (Refer to para [106]; “The ultrasonic system may comprise … a processor 40.”) to: determine, for each of a plurality of columns in a window centered on a subject pixel in an image, one or more partial speckle regions (Refer to para [017 and 021]; “… determining speckles in the region of interest; determining speckles in the preset segment in the region of interest”) determine, based on the one or more partial speckle regions for each of the plurality of columns, a speckle size of the subject pixel (Refer to para [045]; “… displaying speckles in the region of interest in the ultrasound image corresponding to the selected segment and hiding speckles in the region of interest in the ultrasound image corresponding to an unselected segment.”) . Wang does not expressly disclose an image processor in order to remove the noise associated with the subject pixel from the image. Yacoubian teaches “…a camera with multi-wavelength channel outputs is used to produce multi-color or multi-wavelength images.” More specifically, Y acoubian teaches determin[ing], based on the speckle size of the subject pixel, to remove noise associated with the subject pixel from the image (Refer to para [066]; “To remove speckle noise from the image, the random media or the multi-mode fiber can be moved during image acquisition. FIGS. 5A and 5B depict a coherent light source 501, a moving diffuser 502, optics and iris 503, and controlled aperture 504. The apparatus controls the speckle size 505 and incorporates a moving fiber 506 that reduces the speckle noise in the detected image.”) and remove the noise associated with the subject pixel from the image (Refer to para [068 and 069]; “FIGS. 5C and 5D show two types of apparatus to generate coherent illumination for small defect detection. Speckles are generated using diffuse media (FIG. 5C), and using a multi-mode fiber (FIG. 5D). To remove speckle noise from the image, the diffuse media or the multi-mode fiber is moved rapidly. To minimize false detection, the speckle generation apparatus is spatially modulated, as described herein. FIGS. 5C and 5D depict optics and iris 503, fast moving fiber 506, laser diode (LD) 508, fast moving diffuser 509, illuminated spot of light on the diffuser 510 by LD, spatially modulated speckle generator 511, and speckle illumination 512. To remove speckle noise from the image, the random media or the multi-mode fiber is moved during image acquisition.”) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding an image processor for calculating removing speckle noise as taught above by Yacoubian . The suggestion/motivation for combining the teachings of Wang and Yacoubian would have been in order to “provide accurate detection of defects, and provides a digital map of the location of defects.” (at para [002], Yacoubian ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang and Yacoubian in order to obtain the specified claimed elements of Claim 20 . It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question. Regarding Claim 11: Wang discloses a method (Refer to para [001]; “The disclosure relates to a quantitative analysis method for cardiac motion, and an ultrasonic system.”) comprising: determining, with one or more processors and for each of a plurality of columns in a window centered on a subject pixel in an image, one or more partial speckle regions (Refer to para [017 and 021]; “… determining speckles in the region of interest; determining speckles in the preset segment in the region of interest”) determining, with the one or more processors and based on the one or more partial speckle regions for each of the plurality of columns, a speckle size of the subject pixel (Refer to para [045]; “… displaying speckles in the region of interest in the ultrasound image corresponding to the selected segment and hiding speckles in the region of interest in the ultrasound image corresponding to an unselected segment.”). Wang does not expressly disclose an image processor in order to remove the noise associated with the subject pixel from the image. Yacoubian teaches “a camera with multi-wavelength channel outputs is used to produce multi-color or multi-wavelength images.” More specifically, Y acoubian teaches determining, with the one or more processors and based on the speckle size of the subject pixel, to remove noise associated with the subject pixel from the image (Refer to para [066]; “To remove speckle noise from the image, the random media or the multi-mode fiber can be moved during image acquisition. FIGS. 5A and 5B depict a coherent light source 501, a moving diffuser 502, optics and iris 503, and controlled aperture 504. The apparatus controls the speckle size 505 and incorporates a moving fiber 506 that reduces the speckle noise in the detected image.”) and removing, with the one or more processors, the noise associated with the subject pixel from the image (Refer to para [068 and 069]; “FIGS. 5C and 5D show two types of apparatus to generate coherent illumination for small defect detection. Speckles are generated using diffuse media (FIG. 5C), and using a multi-mode fiber (FIG. 5D). To remove speckle noise from the image, the diffuse media or the multi-mode fiber is moved rapidly. To minimize false detection, the speckle generation apparatus is spatially modulated, as described herein. FIGS. 5C and 5D depict optics and iris 503, fast moving fiber 506, laser diode (LD) 508, fast moving diffuser 509, illuminated spot of light on the diffuser 510 by LD, spatially modulated speckle generator 511, and speckle illumination 512. To remove speckle noise from the image, the random media or the multi-mode fiber is moved during image acquisition.”) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding an image processor for calculating removing speckle noise as taught above by Yacoubian . The suggestion/motivation for combining the teachings of Wang and Yacoubian would have been in order to “provide accurate detection of defects, and provides a digital map of the location of defects.” (at para [002], Yacoubian ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang and Yacoubian in order to obtain the specified claimed elements of Claim 11 . It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question. Regarding Claim 1: Wang discloses a computing device (Refer to para [001]; “The disclosure relates to a quantitative analysis method for cardiac motion, and an ultrasonic system.”) comprising: one or more memories (Refer to para [169]; “These computer program instructions can also be stored in a computer-readable memory that can instruct a computer or other programmable data processing device to operate in a specific manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer-readable memory can form a manufactured product, including an implementation apparatus that implements a specified function.”) configured to store an image; and one or more processors implemented in circuitry, coupled to the one or more memories (Refer to para [088]; “the quantitative analysis method for cardiac motion, the ultrasonic system and the computer-readable storage medium implemented above, an ultrasonic wave is transmitted to a target heart; an ultrasonic echo returned from the target heart is received; an ultrasound image of the target heart is determined according to the ultrasonic echo; a region of interest in the ultrasound image is obtained;”) and configured to: determine, for each of a plurality of columns in a window centered on a subject pixel in the image, one or more partial speckle regions (Refer to para [017 and 021]; “… determining speckles in the region of interest; determining speckles in the preset segment in the region of interest”) determine, based on the one or more partial speckle regions for each of the plurality of columns, a speckle size of the subject pixel (Refer to para [045]; “… displaying speckles in the region of interest in the ultrasound image corresponding to the selected segment and hiding speckles in the region of interest in the ultrasound image corresponding to an unselected segment.”). Wang does not expressly disclose an image processor in order to remove the noise associated with the subject pixel from the image. Yacoubian teaches “a camera with multi-wavelength channel outputs is used to produce multi-color or multi-wavelength images.” More specifically, Y acoubian teaches determin[ing], based on the speckle size of the subject pixel, to remove noise associated with the subject pixel from the image (Refer to para [066]; “To remove speckle noise from the image, the random media or the multi-mode fiber can be moved during image acquisition. FIGS. 5A and 5B depict a coherent light source 501, a moving diffuser 502, optics and iris 503, and controlled aperture 504. The apparatus controls the speckle size 505 and incorporates a moving fiber 506 that reduces the speckle noise in the detected image.”) and remove the noise associated with the subject pixel from the image (Refer to para [068 and 069]; “FIGS. 5C and 5D show two types of apparatus to generate coherent illumination for small defect detection. Speckles are generated using diffuse media (FIG. 5C), and using a multi-mode fiber (FIG. 5D). To remove speckle noise from the image, the diffuse media or the multi-mode fiber is moved rapidly. To minimize false detection, the speckle generation apparatus is spatially modulated, as described herein. FIGS. 5C and 5D depict optics and iris 503, fast moving fiber 506, laser diode (LD) 508, fast moving diffuser 509, illuminated spot of light on the diffuser 510 by LD, spatially modulated speckle generator 511, and speckle illumination 512. To remove speckle noise from the image, the random media or the multi-mode fiber is moved during image acquisition.”) . Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Wang by adding an image processor for calculating removing speckle noise as taught above by Yacoubian . The suggestion/motivation for combining the teachings of Wang and Yacoubian would have been in order to “provide accurate detection of defects, and provides a digital map of the location of defects.” (at para [002], Yacoubian ). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Wang and Yacoubian in order to obtain the specified claimed elements of Claim 1 . It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to the claim in question. Regarding Claim 9: Wang discloses the one or more processors (“the processor 40”) include a plurality of hardware units each configured to determine the one or more partial speckle regions in a corresponding column in the window (Refer to para [169]; “In the above embodiments, the disclosure may be implemented in whole or in part by software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof.”). Regarding Claim 19: Wang discloses the one or more processors (“the processor 40”) include a plurality of hardware units each configured to determine the one or more partial speckle regions in a corresponding column in the window (Refer to para [169]; “In the above embodiments, the disclosure may be implemented in whole or in part by software, hardware, firmware, or any combination thereof.”) . Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-08 AIA 07-43 12-51-08 Claim s 2 - 8, 10, 12 - 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art either singly or in combination does not teach, disclose or suggest at least the following claim limitation(s): “… determine, for each of the plurality of columns in a window associated with a subject pixel in the image, one or more partial speckle regions, the one or more processors are further configured to: label each pixel in the window with a corresponding label of a plurality of labels associated with a plurality of partial speckle regions in the window, wherein the corresponding label is indicative of a corresponding partial speckle region out of the plurality of partial speckle regions in the window.” Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure : Related Application : 18/481,909 Chaudhury (US 11138711 B2) discloses “in the present embodiment, images are divided into regions based on the motion directions of matching points, and a final degraded region is determined with additional reference to boundary portions between the divided regions. Furthermore, in the present embodiment, portions deemed to be noise are also removed. According to the present embodiment, the above effects achieve even further improvements in the precision of detecting degraded regions.” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MIA M THOMAS whose telephone number is (571)270-1583. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30am-4:30pm. 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, Stephen (Steve) Koziol can be reached at (408) 918-7630. 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. MIA M. THOMAS Primary Examiner Art Unit 2665 /MIA M THOMAS/Primary Examiner Art Unit 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 2 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 3 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 4 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 5 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 6 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 7 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 8 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 9 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 10 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 11 Art Unit: 2665 Application/Control Number: 18/894,476 Page 12 Art Unit: 2665
Prosecution Insights