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 .
Priority
The present application has claimed priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 from Japanese Patent Application No. JP2023-167883 filed 9/28/2023. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was filed on 9/24/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings filed 9/24/2024 were accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 USC 101.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claims do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite the abstract idea of selecting (selecting a specific screen layout) and calculating (calculate an actual display position).
Step 2A, Prong 1
The limitations that describe the selecting and calculating are processes that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. The claims also include elements of sending (sending an image) and receiving data (receiving an image and display condition), and the processor and display, however nothing in the claims precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind.
Step 2A, Prong 2
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements regarding sending, receiving data, the processor, and display are considered insignificant extra-solution activity. These limitations are not considered improvements to the functioning of a technology or technical field. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the extrasolutionary elements are not considered significantly more than just applying the steps of selecting and calculating.
Step 2B
In addition to the abstract idea, the claims have the sending and receiving data, but they represent only well-understood, routine, conventional activity that can be performed on generic computers. The processor and display are considered as generic computer parts, and thus are for merely applying an exception using generic computer components. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic computer components cannot provide an inventive concept. The sending and receiving of data has been recognized by the courts as being well-understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and MPEP 2106.05(d), subsection II. The claims are not patent eligible.
As per claim 2, this claim has similar display condition (included in the receiving data step) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 3, this claim has similar calculating step and display condition (included in the receiving data step) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
As per claim 4, this claim has similar selecting step and display condition (included in the receiving data step) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 5, this claim recites an additional abstract idea of controlling an update timing. The controlling an update timing is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind. This claim also has a similar display condition (included in the receiving data step) and is rejected similarly to claim 1. There are no other additional elements.
As per claim 6, this claim has similar receiving (the “update” in both cases is interpreted as merely receiving the new image/display condition in the same way the receiving is done in claim 1) and is rejected similarly to claim 1.
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakai (US20180296192A1; filed 4/6/2018) in view of McLaughlin (US20200214668A1; filed 1/4/2019).
With regards to claim 1, Sakai discloses an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a processor (Sakai, Fig. 2: controller 108); and a display (Sakai, abstract: “a single screen of the display part”), wherein the processor is configured to:
select a specific screen layout from among a plurality of screen layouts (Sakai, abstract: "an information acquisition part that obtains an image arrangement format of the plurality of ultrasound images of the obtained multiple-image-saved image data;" paragraph 52: “arrangement format” can include upper-lower and left-right formats when comparing two image);
… external image, which is an image generated through processing of the ultrasound image (Sakai, abstract: “an image generator that generates ultrasound image data from the reception signal”), and a display condition, which is used to display the external image and which includes a designation of a specific display area in the specific screen layout (Sakai, paragraph 53: “the setting information is to include comparison image designation information and comparison image display position information;” paragraph 54: “The comparison image designation information is information to designate, for example, “right” as a comparison image in a case where the image arrangement format of the two-image-saved image data is the left-right format and designate “lower” as the comparison image in a case where the image arrangement format is the upper-lower format”)… and
calculate an actual display position for displaying the external image based on the specific screen layout and the display condition (Sakai, paragraph 78: “the controller 108 determines an ultrasound image as a comparison image among the two-image-saved image data on the basis of the comparison image designation information of the setting information read in step S31, and determines the display position of the comparison image on a two-image comparison screen described below on the basis of the comparison image display position information of the setting information in a same manner (step S33)”) to generate a composite image including the external image as an image to be displayed on the display (Sakai, paragraph 80: “the controller 108 follows the image arrangement format and the comparison image display position determined in steps S32 and S33 to generate a two-image comparison screen containing the comparison image determined in step S33 among the two-image-saved image data read in step S31 and a live image being arranged in parallel, and displays the generated screen on the display part 107 (step S35)”).
However, Sakai does not disclose send an ultrasound image generated through transmission and reception of ultrasound waves to an external information processing apparatus; receive an external image, which is an image generated through processing of the ultrasound image, and a display condition… from the external information processing apparatus.
McLaughlin teaches send an ultrasound image generated through transmission and reception of ultrasound waves to an external information processing apparatus (McLaughlin, abstract: “The external ultrasound docking unit can be configured to receive the portable ultrasound system and offload at least a portion of the ultrasound image processing from the portable ultrasound processing unit when portable ultrasound system is coupled to the external ultrasound docking unit;” paragraph 6: “at least a portion of the ultrasound image processing can be offloaded from the portable ultrasound system to the external ultrasound docking unit to generate the one or more ultrasound images;” paragraph 41: “For example, raw ultrasound data gathered by the portable ultrasound system 202 can be transferred to the external ultrasound docking unit 204 through a communication bus”);
receive an external image, which is an image generated through processing of the ultrasound image (McLaughlin, paragraph 56: “After ultrasound image processing is offloaded to the external ultrasound docking unit 204 and is actually performed by the external ultrasound docking unit 204, then the generated ultrasound images can be sent back to the portable ultrasound system 202”), and a display condition… from the external information processing apparatus (McLaughlin, paragraph 31: “In cooperation with the master controller 104, the image processor 112 also can format images from two or more active imaging modes, including display annotation, graphics overlays and replay of cine loops and recorded timeline data”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Sakai and McLaughlin such that the image processing is performed on an external device. This would have enabled the invention to provide high-performance image processing to a portable ultrasound device (McLaughlin, paragraph 2: “the increased computational resources needed for functioning according to high-performance image processing capabilities can make portable ultrasounds incapable for portable operation”).
With regards to claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Sakai discloses wherein the display condition further includes a designation of a display position in the specific display area, and the display position is a position relative to the specific display area (Sakai, paragraph 54: “The comparison image designation information is information to designate, for example, “right” as a comparison image in a case where the image arrangement format of the two-image-saved image data is the left-right format and designate “lower” as the comparison image in a case where the image arrangement format is the upper-lower format;” in this interpretation, the left/right or upper/lower is interpreted as the relative position, and the “specific display area” is interpreted as display).
With regards to claim 3, which depends on claim 1, Sakai discloses wherein the display condition further includes a designation of a display size of the external image (Sakai, paragraph 54: “The comparison image designation information is information to designate, for example, “right” as a comparison image in a case where the image arrangement format of the two-image-saved image data is the left-right format and designate “lower” as the comparison image in a case where the image arrangement format is the upper-lower format;” the position left/right or upper/lower is interpreted as the designation which indicates the display size and position of the image being displayed in the layout),
the display size is a size relative to the specific display area (any size can be considered “relative” to the specific display area), and
the processor is configured to calculate an actual display size of the external image based on the designation of the display size (Sakai, paragraph 80: “the controller 108 follows the image arrangement format and the comparison image display position determined in steps S32 and S33 to generate a two-image comparison screen containing the comparison image determined in step S33 among the two-image-saved image data read in step S31 and a live image being arranged in parallel, and displays the generated screen on the display part 107 (step S35);” the generating of an image requires the calculation of the size of the elements being displayed).
With regards to claim 4, which depends on claim 1, Sakai discloses wherein the display condition further includes a direct or indirect designation of the specific screen layout (Sakai, paragraph 19: “an information acquisition part that obtains an image arrangement format of the plurality of ultrasound images of the obtained multiple-image-saved image data”), and
the processor is configured to select the specific screen layout based on the direct or indirect designation of the specific screen layout (Sakai, paragraph 20: “a display controller that performs comparison display of a comparison image among the plurality of ultrasound images of the multiple-image-saved image data and a current image based on the generated current ultrasound image data onto a single screen of the display part in accordance with the obtained image arrangement format.”).
With regards to claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Sakai discloses wherein the display condition further includes an update condition (Sakai’s display can be used to compare multiple previously recorded images to each other, or a live image to a previously recorded image. Whether or not it is set to use a live image is considered as the update condition; Sakai, paragraph 60: “the controller 108 follows the image arrangement format input in step S11 to generate a parallel screen containing a frozen image based on the cine image data generated in step S13 and a live image of the live image data being arranged in parallel, and displays the generated screen on the display part 107 (step S15);” paragraph 7: “The two-image-saved image 700 includes a past ultrasound image 710 arranged on the left side and a past ultrasound image 720 arranged on the right side”), and the processor is configured to control an update timing of the external image displayed on the display in accordance with the update condition (Sakai, paragraph 60: “the frozen image is arranged on the left side and the live image is arranged on the right side, for example;” the timing is interpreted as the frequency of the live ultrasound image feed).
With regards to claim 6, which depends on claim 5, Sakai discloses wherein the processor is configured to: in a case in which a synchronous mode is designated as the update condition, and a plurality of the… images are generated through a plurality of image processing operations…, simultaneously update the plurality of external images displayed on the display (Sakai, paragraph 60: “the controller 108 follows the image arrangement format input in step S11 to generate a parallel screen containing a frozen image based on the cine image data generated in step S13 and a live image of the live image data being arranged in parallel, and displays the generated screen on the display part 107 (step S15);” a “live image” is interpreted as being updated simultaneously); and
in a case in which an asynchronous mode is designated as the update condition, and the plurality of external images are generated through the plurality of image processing operation…, independently update the plurality of external images displayed on the display (It is not necessary to teach this optional limitation for the rejection).
However, Sakai does not disclose a plurality of the external images are generated through a plurality of image processing operations by the external information processing apparatus… external images are generated through the plurality of image processing operations by the external information processing apparatus.
McLaughlin teaches a plurality of the external images are generated through a plurality of image processing operations by the external information processing apparatus… external images are generated through the plurality of image processing operations by the external information processing apparatus (McLaughlin, paragraph 56: “After ultrasound image processing is offloaded to the external ultrasound docking unit 204 and is actually performed by the external ultrasound docking unit 204, then the generated ultrasound images can be sent back to the portable ultrasound system 202”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have combined Sakai and McLaughlin such that the image processing is performed on an external device. This would have enabled the invention to provide high-performance image processing to a portable ultrasound device (McLaughlin, paragraph 2: “the increased computational resources needed for functioning according to high-performance image processing capabilities can make portable ultrasounds incapable for portable operation”).
Claim 7 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Claim 8 recites substantially similar limitations to claim 1 and is thus rejected along the same rationale.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hobelsberger et al (US20090012394A1): Teaches enabling a user to adjust the size of the render box of an ultrasound display.
Norimatsu et al (US20090287996A1): Teaches an automatic image layout system.
Kim et al (US20150160844A1): Teaches displaying multiple medical images simultaneously, and changing the sizes of individual images.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRODERICK C ANDERSON whose telephone number is (313)446-6566. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Tuesday, Thursday-Saturday 9-5 PST.
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 Hong can be reached at 5712724124. 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.
/B.C.A/Examiner, Art Unit 2178 /STEPHEN S HONG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2178
Prosecution Insights