DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Remarks
2. Claims 1-12 have been examined and rejected. This is the first Office action on the merits.
Claim Interpretation
3. 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.
4. 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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) 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) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
5. 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) because the claim limitations use 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 limitations are:
a. The limitation “a recognition unit that executes recognition processing of a scanning cross section on an ultrasound image generated by being scanned with ultrasound, to estimate a plurality of candidates for a scanning cross section scanned with the ultrasound, and calculates a score indicating a certainty of the estimation for each candidate” in [claim 1, lines 2-5], because it uses a non-structural term “recognition unit” coupled with functional language “executes recognition processing of a scanning cross section on an ultrasound image generated by being scanned with ultrasound, to estimate a plurality of candidates for a scanning cross section scanned with the ultrasound, and calculates a score indicating a certainty of the estimation for each candidate” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
b. The limitation “a display controller that displays, on a display, candidate images showing a plurality of respective candidates having higher scores among the plurality of candidates in different display aspects for each score” in [claim 1, lines 6-8], because it uses a non-structural term “display controller” coupled with functional language “displays, on a display, candidate images showing a plurality of respective candidates having higher scores among the plurality of candidates in different display aspects for each score” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
C. The limitation “a reception unit that receives user's selection of a candidate having a score equal to or higher than a threshold value, and does not receive user's selection of a candidate having a score lower than the threshold value” in [claim 3, lines 2-4], because it uses a non-structural term “reception unit” coupled with functional language “receives user's selection of a candidate having a score equal to or higher than a threshold value, and does not receive user's selection of a candidate having a score lower than the threshold value” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
d. The limitation “an execution unit that executes an examination in accordance with a setting related to a first candidate among the plurality of candidates” in [claim 11, lines 2-3], because it uses a non-structural term “execution unit” coupled with functional language “executes an examination in accordance with a setting related to a first candidate among the plurality of candidates” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the non-structural term is not preceded by a structural modifier.
6. Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
7. If applicant does not intend to have these limitations interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitations to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitations recite sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
8. 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.
9. Claims 1, 9, 11, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wang et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,948,345).
9-1. Regarding claims 1 and 12, Wang teaches the claim comprising: a recognition unit that executes recognition processing of a scanning cross section on an ultrasound image generated by being scanned with ultrasound, to estimate a plurality of candidates for a scanning cross section scanned with the ultrasound, and calculates a score indicating a certainty of the estimation for each candidate, by disclosing a settings retrieval engine implementing a neural network that uses image data files retrieved from a source device to identify a prior image with a view that matches a current ultrasound image [column 7, lines 1-2, 52-55; column 9, line 67 to column 10, line 4]. Matches are identified based on a similarity score exceeding a certain value [column 8, lines 20-24; column 12, lines 57-61].
Wang teaches a display controller that displays, on a display, candidate images showing a plurality of respective candidates having higher scores among the plurality of candidates in different display aspects for each score, by disclosing displaying a view-matching interface comprising matching images [column 8, lines 26-37; column 11, line 62 to column 12, line 11; column 13, lines 38-46; figure 5].
9-2. Regarding claim 9, Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the display controller displays a candidate for a cross section for which an examination is completed and a candidate for a cross section for which the examination is not completed, on the display in a distinguishable manner, by disclosing that prior image data retrieved may include archived images from the recurring patient’s last exam of the same type, or a number of the recurring patient’s most recent exams of the same type [column 7, lines 46-51]. Since a current ultrasound image for a current exam is used to identify a matching previous image such that a new ultrasound image with adjusted imaging parameters is acquired and locally stored [column 8, lines 40-46], and another view is subsequently acquired by the sonographer [column 8, lines 60-62] that acquires images at the another view from the local storage [column 7, lines 31-39] to identify matching pairs of images [column 7, lines 52-55], the matching pairs of images may include the most recently stored ultrasound image from the current examination, which is not yet completed.
9-3. Regarding claim 11, Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, further comprising: an execution unit that executes an examination in accordance with a setting related to a first candidate among the plurality of candidates, by disclosing using the retrieved prior settings of the matching prior image to capture a new current image [column 8, lines 40-60].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
10. 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.
11. Claims 2-4, 6, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,948,345) in view of Bouguet et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,840,076).
11-1. Regarding claim 2, Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1, wherein the display controller displays a plurality of the candidate images on the display in an arranged manner in an arrangement order corresponding to the scores, by disclosing that the matches are arranged from left to right in decreasing similarity score [figure 5].
Wang does not expressly teach wherein the display controller changes the arrangement order of the plurality of candidate images in response to an instruction issued by a user to change the arrangement order to display the plurality of candidate images in an arranged manner on the display. Bouguet discloses displaying search results of images ranked based on a relevancy score [column 4, lines 11-14; column 4, lines 32-35]. A user may then rearrange one or more of the search results by selecting and dragging a search result from the result window to a positive example window or a negative example window [column 4, lines 38-44]. The user can then select a run query button to cause a mining module to process image collection according to the supplied examples [column 4, lines 44-46]. This would help the user find more relevant matches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow a user to rearrange the matching results of Wang to indicate positive or negative examples for obtaining better matching results, as taught by Bouguet. This would help provide a better match for the user.
11-2. Regarding claim 3, Wang-Bouguet teach all the limitations of claim 2, further comprising: a reception unit that receives user's selection of a candidate having a score equal to or higher than a threshold value, and does not receive user's selection of a candidate having a score lower than the threshold value, by disclosing that the sonographer may provide confirmatory input that the two views are sufficiently matched before adjusting the settings and/or acquiring further images with the updated settings [Wang, column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 2].
11-3. Regarding claim 4, Wang-Bouguet teach all the limitations of claim 3, wherein, in a case in which a candidate that corresponds to a candidate image displayed at a position corresponding to a specific rank in the arrangement order corresponding to the scores and that has the score equal to or higher than the threshold value is selected by the user, the reception unit receives the selection, by disclosing displaying a view-matching interface comprising matching images [Wang, column 11, line 62 to column 12, line 11; column 13, lines 38-46; figure 5] and receiving confirmatory input that the two views are sufficiently matched before adjusting the settings and/or acquiring further images with the updated settings [Wang, column 8, line 63 to column 9, line 2; column 13, lines 46-51].
11-4. Regarding claim 6, Wang-Bouguet teach all the limitations of claim 2, wherein, in a case in which a plurality of ultrasound images showing candidates having scores equal to or higher than a first threshold value are consecutively acquired, and the number of the consecutively acquired plurality of ultrasound images is equal to or higher than a second threshold value, the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus executes a next examination, by disclosing that the system may automatically store the current image upon the identification of a matching prior view such that a sonographer may continue the examination [Wang, column 8, lines 60-62; column 9, lines 5-8].
11-5. Regarding claim 10, Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not expressly teach wherein, in a case in which a user issues an instruction to execute re-recognition after the plurality of candidates are estimated by the recognition unit, the recognition unit executes the recognition processing on the ultrasound image again to estimate a new plurality of candidates for the scanning cross section, excluding a candidate having a highest score among the plurality of candidates, and the display controller displays candidate images showing the new plurality of candidates on the display. Bouguet discloses displaying search results of images ranked based on a relevancy score [column 4, lines 11-14; column 4, lines 32-35]. A user may select and drag a search result from the result window to a positive example window or a negative example window [column 4, lines 38-44]. The user can then select a run query button to cause a mining module to process image collection according to the supplied examples [column 4, lines 44-46]. This would help the user find more relevant matches. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to allow a user to indicate positive or negative examples and rerun image ranking, as taught by Bouguet. This would help provide a better match for the user.
12. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,948,345), in view of Bouguet et al (U.S. Patent No. 7,840,076), and further in view of Alcantara et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,810,255).
12-1. Regarding claim 5, Wang-Bouguet teach all the limitations of claim 3, wherein, in a case in which the candidate having the score lower than the threshold value is selected by the user, the reception unit receives the selection as valid selection depending on a content of processing executed after the selection. Alcantara discloses determining a similarity score to indicate how similar two images may be [column 10, lines 25-30]. An application permits a user to provide match confirmation user input regarding whether at least one of the image search results depicts a certain feature by selecting one of the image search results to bring up a context menu allowing the user to confirm whether that search result depicts the feature [column 15, lines 29-36]. This would help ensure a correct selection was made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display search results regardless of a score exceeding a threshold value and allow confirmation selection of a result via context menu, as taught by Alcantara. This would help ensure a correct selection was made.
13. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,948,345) in view of Sasaki et al (Pub. No. US 2021/0303917).
13-1. Regarding claim 7, Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not expressly teach wherein, in a case in which a candidate having a score equal to or higher than a threshold value is not estimated, the display controller displays information prompting a user to manually select the candidate on the display. Sasaki discloses an inference unit that infers a body mark with respect to an ultrasonic image using a classifier such that inference results are output as likelihood of a correct label [paragraphs 22, 27, 36; figure 10, ‘S302’]. A determination unit acquires a class and a likelihood corresponding to the class as inference results from the inference unit, wherein the class corresponds to a body mark [paragraph 70, lines 4-8; figure 10, ‘S901’]. The determination unit compares the likelihood corresponding to the acquired class with a predetermined reference [paragraph 70, lines 8-10] and when the likelihood corresponding to the class does not satisfy the predetermined reference, information indicating the classes and likelihoods respectively corresponding to the classes are transmitted for display [paragraph 70, lines 15-20; paragraphs 71-72; figure 11]. The user can then select an image indicating the capturing position from among the candidates [paragraph 72, lines 23-28]. This would allow the user to select the closest candidate even when the score is less than desired. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display, for the pairs of Wang that do not have a score higher than a threshold value, an interface prompting the user for manual selection of a candidate, as taught by Sasaki. This would allow the user to select the closest candidate even when the score is less than desired.
14. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (U.S. Patent No. 11,948,345), in view of Alcantara et al (U.S. Patent No. 10,810,255).
14-1. Regarding claim 8, Wang teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Wang does not expressly teach wherein, in a case in which a candidate having a score equal to or higher than a threshold value is not estimated, and a region in which a plurality of the candidate images are displayed is designated, the display controller displays a candidate list for a user to select the candidate on the display. Alcantara discloses determining a similarity score to indicate how similar two images may be [column 10, lines 25-30]. An application permits a user to provide match confirmation user input regarding whether at least one of the image search results depicts a certain feature by selecting one of the image search results to bring up a context menu allowing the user to confirm whether that search result depicts the feature [column 15, lines 29-36]. This would help ensure a correct selection was made. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to display search results regardless of a score exceeding a threshold value and allow confirmation selection of a result via context menu, as taught by Alcantara. This would help ensure a correct selection was made.
Conclusion
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALVIN H TAN whose telephone number is (571)272-8595. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Scott Baderman can be reached at 571-272-3644. 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.
/ALVIN H TAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
Prosecution Insights