DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on March 4, 2026 concerning application No. 18/909,514 filed on October 8, 2024.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6-8, 10-11, and 13-14 are currently pending.
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 arguments filed 03/04/3036 regarding the drawings objection have been fully considered. The amendments to the specification have been entered and overcome the drawings objections regarding reference characters 120 in fig. 1, 300 and 306 in fig. 3, 602 in fig. 6, and 914 in fig. 9. The amendments further overcome the reference character 620 previously recited in [0061] of the specification. The amendments to the specification filed 03/04/2026 do not recite character 122, therefore the drawings objection for fig. 1 stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/3036 regarding the 35 USC 112 rejection have been fully considered. The amendments to the claims have been entered and overcome the 35 USC 112b rejection of claims 2, 5-9, and 12-14 previously set forth.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/3036 regarding the double patenting have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Since applicant did not submit a terminal disclaimer the double patenting rejection stands.
Applicant's arguments filed 03/04/3036 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed relative to other ultrasound images of the stored image data files”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action, [0029]-[0031] of Park disclose determining an identified image (identified key frame) based on a comparison of a set of images with a reference image, the image that is most similar is considered the identified key frame image. [0030] specifically recites “the identified image from the series may be selected based on also including both the landmark and the structure”. Since the identified image includes both the landmark and the structure, the identified image is considered to have a clearer display of the target organ compared to the other images used in the comparison that do not include both the landmark and the structure. For at least these reasons Park teaches the argued limitation recited above. Currently, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation encompasses an image that includes a target as being clearer than an image that does not include the target. If applicant wishes for a narrower interpretation of the claim limitation to be used it is recommended they amend the claims to include the specific metric being used to determine whether one image is clearer than another image.
Specification
The disclosure filed 03/04/2026 is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0028], line 17, “an icon 120 within a menu 120” should read “an icon 120 within a menu 122”,
The amendments to the specification filed 03/04/2026 are objected to because the paragraph numbers in the amendments correspond to the paragraph numbers present within the PGPUB 20250114075A1 and do not correspond to the paragraph numbers used in the specification filed 10/08/2024. Correction of the paragraph numbers filed in the amendment dated 03/04/2026 is requested.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: 122 in fig. 1. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 6-8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, line 7, “an elevational direction” should read “the elevational direction”,
Claim 1, lines 16-17, “the ultrasound image data files stored” should read “the image data files stored”,
Claim 1, line 21, “the selected series of stored image data files” should read “the series of ultrasound images”,
Claim 1, lines 23-24, claim 4, line 3, and claims 6-7, line 2, “the series of image data files” should read “the series of ultrasound images”,
Claim 1, line 9 and claim 8, line 7, “the array” should read “the 2D array”,
Claims 8, line 21, and 13-14, line 3, “a preferential view of an anatomical target” should read “the preferential view of the anatomical target”,
Claims 8, line 23, and 13-14, lines 4-5, “the series of images” should read “the series of ultrasound images.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1, 4, 6, 8, 11, and 13 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7, 11, 15, and 17 of copending Application No. 18/908,029 (reference application) in view of Park (US 20180168536).
Instant Application 18/909,514
Reference Application 18/908,029
Claim 1: An ultrasound system comprising;
a handheld ultrasound imaging device including;
a flat two-dimensional (2D) array of micromachined ultrasound transducers (MUTs) having an elevational direction and an azimuthal direction, and
a processor configured to control the 2D array to take a series of ultrasound images along an elevational direction of the 2D array to have successive images taken at a successively progressing angle relative to an axis parallel to the elevational direction of the array by beam steering ultrasonic signals produced by the MUTs, and
a handheld computing device coupled to the handheld ultrasound imaging device and having a memory capable of storing ultrasound image data, and configured to receive ultrasound image data from the handheld ultrasound imaging device and store the ultrasound image data as image data files in the memory, and
including an image processor configured to analyze the ultrasound image data files stored in memory to designate an image from the series of ultrasound images as a key frame and to generate a forward and reversing cine centered on the key frame and that presents a selected series of the stored image data files.
Claim 1: An ultrasound system comprising;
a handheld ultrasound imaging device including;
a flat two-dimensional (2D) array of micromachined ultrasound transducers (MUTs), and
a processor configured to control the 2D array to take a series of ultrasound images along an elevational direction of the 2D array where each image is taken at a different angle relative to an axis parallel to the elevational direction of the array by beam steering ultrasonic signals produced by the MUTs, and
store the series of ultrasound images in a memory as a series of ultrasound image data, and
a handheld computing device coupled to the handheld ultrasound imaging device having a memory capable of storing ultrasound image data, and
wherein the handheld ultrasound imaging device is configured to transmit ultrasound image data to the handheld computing device and store the data in the memory
the handheld computing device includes an image processor analyzing the ultrasound image data stored in memory to reconstruct a three-dimensional (3D) model of an imaging target, and
a display for displaying ultrasound image data or the 3D model as any one of a still image, a video, or a cine.
Claim 5: The system of claim 1 where the image processor is configured to select an image from the series of ultrasound images and designates it as a key-frame.
Similarly, the similar limitations of claim 8 of the instant application are disclosed by claims 11 and 15 of the reference application.
The reference application does not specifically disclose the image processor is configured to identify the key frame from the selected series of stored image data files which presents within the cine a preferential view of an anatomical target and wherein the image processor identifies a key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed relative to other ultrasound images of the stored image data files.
However,
Park in a similar field of endeavor discloses the image processor is configured to identify a key frame from the selected series of stored image data files which presents within the cine a preferential view of an anatomical target ([0029]-[0031] disclose the identified image (key frame) is selected based on the image containing a representation (preferential view) of the anatomical structure that is most similar to a comparison image) and wherein the image processor identifies a key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed relative to other ultrasound images of the stored image data files ([0029]-[0031] discloses determining the identified image based on a comparison of the images with a reference image, the image that is most similar is considered the identified image. Therefore the image that has the same clarity of the anatomical structure (target organ) as the anatomical structure in the reference structure is selected as the identified image)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the determination process of the key frame of the reference application for the identifying the key frame of Park because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of identifying the key frame.
Regarding claims 4 and 11 of the instant application. Claims 7 and 17 of the reference application disclose the limitations.
Regarding claims 6 and 13, the reference application in view of Park discloses the system of claim 2 and method of claim 9, as set forth above. Park further discloses the image processor identifies a key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing visibility of a pathology within an imaging target relative to other images data files of the stored image data files ([0030]-[0031] discloses ensuring the identified image has a representation of the anatomical structure (pathology). By ensuring the image includes the anatomical structure the image is being identified by analyzing the visibility of the pathology within the image target relative to other images being used in the comparison. [0021] discloses the anatomical structure detected is a lesion).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims 3 and 10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 11, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/908,029 in view of Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Howell et al. (US 20200320694).
Regarding claims 3 and 10, the reference application in view of Park discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, as set forth above. The reference application in view of Park does not specifically disclose the handheld computing device is configured to display the cine and allow the user to manually pause, fast forward, and rewind the displayed cine.
However,
Howell in a similar field of endeavor discloses the handheld computing device is configured to display the cine and allow the user to manually pause, fast forward, and rewind the displayed cine ([0030] and fig. 12 disclose the GUI of the processing device displaying the cine and further allow the user to adjust the playback of the cine being displayed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the handheld computing device be configured to display the cine and allow the user to manually pause, fast forward, and rewind the displayed cine in order to allow for the user to view their desired view of the anatomy, thereby improving the outcomes of the procedure.
Claims 7 and 14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1, 5, 11, and 15 of copending Application No. 18/908,029 in view of Park and Xu et al. (US 20210068789).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, the reference application in view of Park discloses the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, as set forth above. The reference application in view of Park does not specifically disclose the image processor identifies a key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how prominently a b-line is displayed in the image data file relative to other image data files of the stored image data files.
However,
Xu in a similar field of endeavor discloses an image processor identifies a key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how prominently a b-line is displayed in the image data file relative to other image data files of the stored image data files (Abstract “the processor may be further configured to identify a pleural line in each of the plurality of image frames, define a region of interest below each pleural line, identify one or more candidate B-lines within the region of interest, identify one or more B-lines by evaluating one or more parameters of each candidate B-line, and select a target image frame from the plurality of image frames by identifying an image frame that maximizes at least a number or an intensity of B-lines”, where the number and/or intensity of the B-lines is considered the prominence of the b-line displayed in the image data file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the determination process of the key frame of the reference application in view of Park for the identifying the key frame using a b-line process of Xu because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of identifying the key frame.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10-11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell et al. (US 20200320694, hereinafter Howell) in view of Park et al. (US 20180168536, hereinafter Park).
Regarding claim 1, Howell teaches an ultrasound system (ultrasound system 2400 in fig. 24) comprising;
a handheld ultrasound imaging device ([0055] discloses ultrasound device 2403 is operated using one hand meaning it is handheld) including;
a two-dimensional (2D) array of micromachined ultrasound transducers (MUTs) having an elevational direction and an azimuthal direction ([0025] discloses the ultrasound device includes a two-dimensional array with multiple elevation rows, meaning the array has an elevational direction and an azimuthal direction. [0052] discloses the transducer includes micromachined ultrasound transducers), and
a processor (the electronic circuitry of the ultrasound device 2402) configured to control the 2D array to take a series of ultrasound images along an elevational direction of the 2D array to have successive images taken at a successively progressing angle relative to an axis parallel to the elevational direction of the array by beam steering ultrasonic signals produced by the MUTs ([0025] discloses an elevational sweep is performed using the ultrasound device where each image is collected along a different slice at a different angle along the elevational dimension of the ultrasound device’s transducer array. [0052] discloses the ultrasound circuity is configured to generate the ultrasound data), and
a handheld computing device ([0055] “processing device 2404 may be implemented as a handheld device”) coupled to the handheld ultrasound imaging device (fig. 24 shows the processing device 24 connected to the ultrasound device 2402) and having a memory ([0053] discloses the processing device includes a buffer (memory) for storing the ultrasound data) capable of storing ultrasound image data, and configured to receive ultrasound image data from the handheld ultrasound imaging device and store the ultrasound image data as image data files in the memory ([0053] discloses the processing device 2404 is configured to receive the ultrasound data from the ultrasound device 2402 and store the ultrasound data during scanning), and
including an image processor (the electronic circuitry of the processing device 2404) configured to analyze the ultrasound image data files stored in memory ([0053] discloses processing the ultrasound image data. [0021] and [0023] further discloses determining and updating the segmented portion within the image which is considered an analysis of the ultrasound image data files) and to generate a forward and reversing cine centered on a key frame and that presents a selected series of the stored image data files ([0025] discloses generating a 3D sweep (cine) where the ultrasound image 212 (key frame) is the center imaging slice of the 3D sweep. [0030] further discloses displaying the cine 1228 on the GUI 1200).
Howell does not specifically teach the two-dimensional (2D) array is flat and the image processor is configured to designate an image from the series of ultrasound images as a key frame; wherein the image processor is configured to identify the key frame from the selected series of stored image data files which presents within the cine a preferential view of an anatomical target; and wherein the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed relative to other ultrasound images of the stored image data files.
However,
Park in a similar field of endeavor teaches the two-dimensional (2D) array is flat ([0051] discloses the two-dimensional transducer array is planar (flat)) and the image processor is configured to designate an image from the series of ultrasound images as a key frame ([0030] discloses identifying an image (key frame) from the series of images);
wherein the image processor is configured to identify the key frame from the selected series of stored image data files which presents within the cine a preferential view of an anatomical target ([0029]-[0031] disclose the identified image (key frame) is selected based on the image containing a representation (preferential view) of the anatomical structure that is most similar to a comparison image); and
wherein the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed relative to other ultrasound images of the stored image data files ([0029]-[0031] discloses determining the identified image (key frame) based on a comparison of the images with a reference image, the image that is most similar is considered the identified key frame image. [0030] specifically recites “the identified image from the series may be selected based on also including both the landmark and the structure”. Since the identified image includes both the landmark and the structure, the identified image is considered to have a clearer display of the target organ compared to the other images used in the comparison that do not include both the landmark and the structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the 2D array of Howell for the flat 2D array of Park because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of generating a series of ultrasound images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the image processor be configured to designate an image from the series of ultrasound images as the key frame of Park to the image processor of Howell to allow for the predictable results of reducing the need for user input, thereby making the imaging procedure more efficient and reducing the need for experiences users to operate the system, thereby reducing costs.
Regarding claim 8, Howell teaches a method of displaying ultrasound images ([0005] discloses a method. Fig. 23 further discloses the method for displaying ultrasound images) comprising;
providing a handheld ultrasound imaging device (ultrasound system 2400 in fig. 24) including a two-dimensional (2D) array of micromachined ultrasound transducers (MUTs) ([0025] discloses the ultrasound device includes a two-dimensional array with multiple elevation rows, meaning the array has an elevational direction and an azimuthal direction. [0052] discloses the transducer includes micromachined ultrasound transducers), and
a processor (the electronic circuitry of the ultrasound device 2402) to control the 2D array ([0052] discloses the processing circuitry generates the ultrasound data and therefore controls the 2D array to generate the ultrasound data),
operating the 2D array to take a series of ultrasound images along an elevational direction of the 2D array where each image is taken at a different angle relative to an axis parallel to the elevational direction of the array by beam steering ultrasonic signals produced by the MUTs ([0025] discloses an elevational sweep is performed using the ultrasound device where each image is collected along a different slice at a different angle along the elevational dimension of the ultrasound device’s transducer array. [0052] discloses the ultrasound circuity is configured to generate the ultrasound data),
providing a handheld computing device ([0055] “processing device 2404 may be implemented as a handheld device”) for coupling to the handheld ultrasound imaging device (fig. 24 shows the processing device 24 connected to the ultrasound device 2402) and having a memory ([0053] discloses the processing device includes a buffer (memory) for storing the ultrasound data) configured to store the series of ultrasound images as a series of ultrasound image data ([0053] discloses the processing device includes a buffer (memory) which receives and stores the ultrasound data during the scanning), and
image processing the series of ultrasound images ([0053] discloses processing the ultrasound image data. [0021] and [0023] further discloses determining and updating the segmented portion within the image which is considered an analysis of the ultrasound image data files), and
displaying ultrasound image data to the user as a cine centered on a key frame ([0025] discloses generating a 3D sweep (cine) where the ultrasound image 212 (key frame) is the center imaging slice of the 3D sweep. [0030] further discloses displaying the cine 1228 on the GUI 1200).
Howell does not specifically teach the two-dimensional (2D) array is flat and designating an image from the series of ultrasound images as a key frame; wherein the image processor is configured to identify the key frame from the selected series of stored image data files which presents within the cine a preferential view of an anatomical target; and wherein the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of ultrasound images as displaying a preferential view of an anatomical target by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed in the image relative to other images in the series of images.
However,
Park in a similar field of endeavor teaches the two-dimensional (2D) array is flat ([0051] discloses the two-dimensional transducer array is planar (flat)) and an image processor which designates an image from the series of ultrasound images as a key frame ([0030] discloses identifying an image (key frame) from the series of images);
wherein the image processor is configured to identify the key frame from the selected series of stored image data files which presents within the cine a preferential view of an anatomical target ([0029]-[0031] disclose the identified image (key frame) is selected based on the image containing a representation (preferential view) of the anatomical structure that is most similar to a comparison image); and
wherein the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of ultrasound images as displaying a preferential view of an anatomical target by analyzing how clearly a target organ is displayed in the image relative to other images in the series of images ([0029]-[0031] discloses determining the identified image (key frame) based on a comparison of the images with a reference image, the image that is most similar is considered the identified key frame image. [0030] specifically recites “the identified image from the series may be selected based on also including both the landmark and the structure”. Since the identified image includes both the landmark and the structure, the identified image is considered to have a clearer display of the target organ compared to the other images used in the comparison that do not include both the landmark and the structure).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the 2D array of Howell for the flat 2D array of Park because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of generating a series of ultrasound images.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of designating an image from the series of ultrasound images as the key frame of Park to the method of Howell to allow for the predictable results of reducing the need for user input, thereby making the imaging procedure more efficient and reducing the need for experiences users to operate the system, thereby reducing costs.
Regarding claims 3 and 10, Howell in view of Park teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, as set forth above. Howell further teaches the handheld computing device is configured to display the cine and allow the user to manually pause, fast forward, and rewind the displayed cine ([0030] and fig. 12 disclose the GUI of the processing device displaying the cine and further allow the user to adjust the playback of the cine being displayed).
Regarding claims 4 and 11, Howell in view of Park teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, as set forth above. Howell further teaches the handheld computing device is configured to allow the user to manually select a different image data file in the series of images data files as the key frame ([0024] discloses the user selects the calculate option when the anatomical feature is properly positioned in ultrasound image 212, thereby selecting image 212 as the key frame. Therefore the handheld computing device is configured to allow the user to manually select a different image data file as the key frame since the user is able to select the image 212 to be used for the method).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Howell in view of Park teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, as set forth above. Park further teaches the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing visibility of a pathology within an imaging target relative to other images data files of the stored image data files ([0030]-[0031] discloses ensuring the identified image has a representation of the anatomical structure (pathology). By ensuring the image includes the anatomical structure the image is being identified by analyzing the visibility of the pathology within the image target relative to other images being used in the comparison. [0021] discloses the anatomical structure detected is a lesion).
Claim(s) 7 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Howell in view of Park as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Xu et al. (US 20210068789, hereinafter Xu).
Regarding claims 7 and 14, Howell in view of Park teaches the system of claim 1 and method of claim 8, as set forth above. Howell in view of Park does not specifically teach the image processor identifies the key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how prominently a b-line is displayed in the image data file relative to other image data files of the stored image data files.
However,
Xu in a similar field of endeavor teaches an image processor identifies a key frame from the series of image data files by analyzing how prominently a b-line is displayed in the image data file relative to other image data files of the stored image data files (Abstract “the processor may be further configured to identify a pleural line in each of the plurality of image frames, define a region of interest below each pleural line, identify one or more candidate B-lines within the region of interest, identify one or more B-lines by evaluating one or more parameters of each candidate B-line, and select a target image frame from the plurality of image frames by identifying an image frame that maximizes at least a number or an intensity of B-lines”, where the number and/or intensity of the B-lines is considered the prominence of the b-line displayed in the image data file).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the determination process of the key frame of Howell in view of Park for the identifying the key frame using a b-line process of Xu because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of identifying the key frame.
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 ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights