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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/21/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Terminal Disclaimer
The applicant submitted a terminal disclaimer over U.S. Patent No. 11,771,399 and 12,138,114 on 2/12/2026, and the terminal disclaimer is acknowledged and approved; thus, the Double Patenting Rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 02/24/2026 has been entered. Claims 41-47 are added, and claims 21-47 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 12/10/2025.
Allowable Subject Matter
The indicated allowability of claim 21 is withdrawn in view of the newly discovered reference(s) to Suzuki in view of Toma. Rejections based on the newly cited reference(s) follow.
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 21-47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 21, 31, and 47 are claims that recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “define”, “analyze”, and “provide” step in the claims does not specify how define a region of interest (ROI), analyze the ROI, or provide indication for moving the transducer. The physician can print and view an ultrasound image and extract a ROI, identify an artery in the ROI based on brightness/darkness, and provide/draw an indication for moving the transducer to the artery using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
The “store” step is an insignificant post-extra solution activity of storing data. General system elements (transducer, processing circuitry, user interface/display) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 22-23 specifies the location of the user interface. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 24 and 34 specifies the directions of providing/drawing an indication for moving the transducer to the artery. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 25 and 35 specifies analyzing/viewing the ovalness of the artery in the image. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 26 and 36 specifies providing/drawing an indication for moving the transducer to the artery such that the artery has minimal ovalness (aka, is a circle) in the image. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 27 and 37 specifies providing/drawing an indication for moving the transducer to the artery such that the artery is positioned at or near a center of the image. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 28 and 38 specifies measuring artery wall thickness in the image, which a physician can view and measure using their mind and a ruler. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 29 and 39 specifies identifying/viewing an atheroma in the ROI based on artery wall thickness. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 30 and 40 specifies the ROI is a first ROI and a second ROI. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 41 specifies identifying the artery in the ROI based on a trained neural network. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
General system elements (trained neural network) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claims 42-43 specifies classifying/viewing a vessel as either an artery or a vein based on the position or shape of the vessel. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 44 specifies providing/drawing an indication for moving the transducer to the artery by comparing/viewing two different printed ultrasound images. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 45 specifies providing/printed images associated with the transducer held in different orientations, and to identify/view an artery in an image. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 46 specifies fitting the artery to an oval. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Section 33(a) of the America Invents Act reads as follows:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no patent may issue on a claim directed to or encompassing a human organism.
Claim 46 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 and section 33(a) of the America Invents Act as being directed to or encompassing a human organism. See also Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (indicating that human organisms are excluded from the scope of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101). Claim 46 recites “fitting the artery to an oval”. The artery is positively recited in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claims 21, 31, and 47 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Remove the element that the identifying is based on “a brightness of a wall of the artery” and “a darkness in a lumen of the artery” because the subsequent limitation requires the basis to be on “a difference between the brightness of the artery wall and the darkness of the artery lumen” so the first instances of brightness/darkness are redundant.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 21, 24, 28-31, 34, 38-40, 44-45, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki et al. (US 20100312110 A1, published December 9, 2010) in view of Toma et al. (US 20140303499 A1, published October 9, 2014), hereinafter referred to as Suzuki and Toma, respectively.
Regarding claim 21, and similarly for claims 31 and 47, Suzuki teaches an ultrasound system (Fig. 1) configured to guide ultrasound acquisition in an individual, comprising:
a handheld transducer configured to direct ultrasound signals towards tissue and to detect corresponding echo signals from the tissue (Fig. 1; see para. 0060 – “A probe 101 that sends out an ultrasonic wave toward a subject and receives the reflected ultrasonic echo from the subject is connected to the transmitting section 102 and the receiving section 103.”); and
processing circuitry operably coupled to the handheld transducer (Fig. 1, processing circuitry includes tomographic image processing section 104, where tomographic image processing section 104 is coupled to probe 101 (handheld transducer) via receiving section 103; see para. 0063 – “The tomographic image processing section 104 [processor] includes a filter, a detector, and a logarithmic amplifier, and analyzes mainly the amplitude of the received signal, thereby presenting the internal structure of the subject as an image.”) and configured to execute program instructions to:
display, on a user interface, ultrasound image data based on the detected echo signals (see para. 0063 – “The tomographic image thus obtained is synthesized with an elasticity image by the image synthesizing section 106 and presented on the monitor 107 as a display section…”);
analyze the image data via the processing circuitry (see para. 0063 – “The tomographic image processing section 104 [processor] includes a filter, a detector, and a logarithmic amplifier, and analyzes mainly the amplitude of the received signal, thereby presenting the internal structure of the subject as an image.”), wherein analyzing the image data comprises:
(i) defining a region of interest from the tissue (Fig. 2, elasticity image 201 as ROI); and
(ii) identifying an artery from the region of interest as the echo signals are being acquired, based on: a brightness of a wall of the artery, a darkness in a lumen of the artery, and a difference between the brightness of the artery wall and the darkness of the artery lumen (see para. 0066 – “The amplitude of the received signal represents the intensity of the wave reflected from a measuring region of the subject. That is why the intensities of the reflected waves are different [difference between darkness and brightness] between the vascular wall and the vascular flow or between the vascular wall and the surrounding tissue. For that reason, by detecting the difference in the amplitude of the received signal, the boundary can be detected and located.”).
Suzuki teaches a user interface, but does not explicitly teach providing on the user interface an indication for moving the handheld transducer to position the artery in a desired location in the image data.
Whereas, Toma, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches
provide on the user interface an indication for moving the handheld transducer to position the artery in a desired location in the image data (see para. 0075 – “Alternatively, the measurement information display unit 106 may display information that indicates an amount that the current position or the current orientation of the ultrasound probe should be changed in order that the angle θ does not exceed a predetermined value.”); and
store a sequence of image data where the artery is in the desired location in the image data (see para. 0095 – “…the position information acquisition unit 202 acquires position and orientation of the ultrasound probe at a time at which the corresponding B-mode ultrasound image was captured, and stores the position and orientation with the B-mode ultrasound image.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface, as disclosed in Suzuki, by also providing on the user interface an indication for moving the handheld transducer to position the artery in a desired location in the image data, as disclosed in Toma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to improve reliability of results obtained during measurement by Doppler ultrasound, as taught in Toma (see para. 0080).
Furthermore, regarding claims 24 and 34, Toma further teaches wherein the indication includes first indicators to move the handheld transducer in at least one of(i) a left/right direction or (ii) an up/down direction, and second indicators to change at least one of (i) a pitch of the handheld transducer or (ii) a roll of the handheld transducer (see para. 0075 – “Alternatively, the measurement information display unit 106 may display information that indicates an amount that the current position or the current orientation of the ultrasound probe should be changed in order that the angle θ does not exceed a predetermined value.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 28 and 38, Suzuki further teaches wherein analyzing the image data comprises measuring at the region of interest, one or more thicknesses of constituent layers of the artery wall as the echo signals are being acquired (see para. 0084 – “If the radius and wall thickness of the blood vessel have been automatically detected properly, an image including the two-dimensional map image of the circumferential elasticities is automatically presented on the monitor 107 in the freeze state following the procedure described above.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 29 and 39, Suzuki further teaches wherein analyzing the image data comprises identifying an atheroma or an onset of an atheroma in the region of interest based on one or more thicknesses of constituent layers of the artery wall (see para. 0012 – “Therefore, by measuring the elasticity Er for multiple spots on a tomographic image, an image representing the distribution of elasticities can be obtained. If an atheroma 220 has been created in the vascular wall of the blood vessel 222 as shown in FIG. 4( a), the atheroma 220 and its surrounding vascular wall tissue have different elasticities.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 30 and 40, Suzuki further teaches wherein the region of interest is a first region of interest, and wherein analyzing the image data comprises defining a second region of interest smaller than and within the first region of interest (see para. 0012 – “Therefore, by measuring the elasticity Er for multiple spots on a tomographic image, an image representing the distribution of elasticities can be obtained. If an atheroma 220 [second region of interest] has been created in the vascular wall of the blood vessel 222 [first region of interest] as shown in FIG. 4( a), the atheroma 220 and its surrounding vascular wall tissue have different elasticities.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 44, Toma further teaches wherein providing the indication for moving the handheld transducer is based, at least in part, on a comparison between current ultrasound image data and previous ultrasound image data (see para. 0106 – “When at a current position and a current orientation of the ultrasound probe, a scan plane [current image] of the ultrasound probe does not match a cross-sectional image [previous image] including the measurement position, a guidance operation (Step S208) is performed in order to guide the ultrasound probe to a position and an orientation at which the scan plane includes the measurement position.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 45, Toma further teaches wherein the ultrasound image data comprises first ultrasound image data associated with the handheld transducer in a first orientation, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to execute the program instructions to analyze second ultrasound image data associated with the handheld transducer in a second orientation different from the first orientation, and wherein analyzing the second ultrasound image data comprises identifying the artery (see para. 0106 – “More specifically, the measurement information display unit 106 displays information indicating an amount that position or orientation of the ultrasound probe should be changed from the current position and the current orientation in order that the scan plane [first image] of the ultrasound probe matches the cross-sectional image [second image]. Once the ultrasound probe has been moved to an appropriate position [second image], measurement by Doppler ultrasound is performed [identifying artery] at a position corresponding to a Doppler gate which has been set (Step S209).”).
The motivation for claims 24, 34, and 44-45 was shown previously in claim 21.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toma, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Mauldin Jr. (US 20160374644 A1, published December 29, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Mauldin.
Regarding claim 22, Suzuki in view of Toma teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 above.
Suzuki in view of Toma teaches a user interface, but does not explicitly teach where the user interface is located on a video monitor.
Whereas, Mauldin, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein the user interface is located on a video monitor (Fig. 2; see para. 0074 – “Identification of a target anatomy 250 with the aid of user input via a touchscreen 240 [user interface on video monitor]…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the user interface, as disclosed in Suzuki in view of Toma, by having the user interface located on a video monitor, as disclosed in Mauldin. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further integrate the ultrasound imaging system into the handheld probe and improve ease of use, as taught in Mauldin (see para. 0052-0053).
Furthermore, regarding claim 23, Mauldin further teaches wherein the user interface is located on the handheld transducer (Fig. 2, touchscreen 240 (user interface) located on handle 230 of portable system 200 (handheld transducer)).
The motivation for claim 23 was shown previously in claim 22.
Claims 25-27 and 35-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toma, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Matsunaga et al. (US 20160000408 A1, published January 7, 2016), hereinafter referred to as Matsunaga.
Regarding claim 25 and 35, Suzuki in view of Toma teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 and 31 above.
Suzuki in view of Toma teaches analyzing an artery in an image, but does not explicitly teach analyzing an ovalness of the artery.
Whereas, Matsunaga, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein analyzing the image data comprises analyzing an ovalness of the artery in the image data (see para. 0072 – “If the ultrasound probe 1 is transmitting an ultrasound wave onto a perpendicular plane, a blood vessel 2i during the short-axis image scan is rendered as a perfect circle, as illustrated in FIG. 2C. In contrast, if the ultrasound probe 1 is not transmitting an ultrasound wave onto a perpendicular plane, the blood vessel during the short-axis image scan is rendered as an oval.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified analyzing an artery in an ultrasound image, as disclosed in Suzuki in view of Toma, by also analyzing the ovalness of the artery, as disclosed in Matsunaga. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to transmit an ultrasound wave in a desirable position and obtain accurate blood flow information, as taught in Matsunaga (see para. 0069).
Furthermore, regarding claims 26 and 36, Matsunaga further teaches wherein providing on the user interface the indication comprises providing on the user interface the indication for moving that handheld transducer to position the artery such that the artery has a minimal ovalness in the image data (see para. 0072 – “If the ultrasound probe 1 is transmitting an ultrasound wave onto a perpendicular plane, a blood vessel 2i during the short-axis image scan is rendered as a perfect circle, as illustrated in FIG. 2C. In contrast, if the ultrasound probe 1 is not transmitting an ultrasound wave onto a perpendicular plane, the blood vessel during the short-axis image scan is rendered as an oval.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 27 and 37, Matsunaga further teaches wherein providing on the user interface the indication comprises providing on the user interface the indication for moving that handheld transducer to position the artery such that the artery is positioned at or near a center ofthe image data (Fig. 2C, blood vessel 2i near center of image data; see para. 0072 – “If the ultrasound probe 1 is transmitting an ultrasound wave onto a perpendicular plane, a blood vessel 2i during the short-axis image scan is rendered as a perfect circle, as illustrated in FIG. 2C. In contrast, if the ultrasound probe 1 is not transmitting an ultrasound wave onto a perpendicular plane, the blood vessel during the short-axis image scan is rendered as an oval.”).
The motivation for claims 26-27 and 36-37 was shown previously in claims 25 and 35.
Claim 41 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toma, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Buras et al. (US 20180225993 A1, published August 9, 2018 with a priority date of January 24, 2017), hereinafter referred to as Buras.
Regarding claim 41, Suzuki in view of Toma teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 above.
Suzuki in view of Toma teaches identifying an artery from a ROI, but does not explicitly teach identifying the artery based on a trained neural network.
Whereas, Buras, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein identifying the artery from the region of interest is further based on a trained neural network (see para. 0083 – “In one embodiment, the outcome-based feedback provided by the MLM [machine learning module] 600 includes 1) the most-probable identity of the ultrasound image (e.g., the name of a desired structure such as “radial cross-section of the carotid artery,” “lateral cross-section of the jugular vein,” etc.)…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified identifying an artery from a ROI, as disclosed in Suzuki in view of Toma, by identifying the artery based on a trained neural network, as disclosed in Buras. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve improved diagnostic or treatment outcomes by novice users having limited medical training, as taught in Buras (see para. 0027).
Claim 42 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toma, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Selzer et al. (US 20040116812 A1, published June 17, 2004), hereinafter referred to as Selzer.
Regarding claim 42, Suzuki in view of Toma teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 above.
Suzuki in view of Toma teaches analyzing image data of a blood vessel, but does not explicitly teach classifying the blood vessel as either an artery or a vein based on a position of the blood vessel.
Whereas, Selzer, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein analyzing the image data further comprises classifying a blood vessel as either an artery or a vein based on a position of the blood vessel (see para. 0048 – “Care is taken to position the transducer in a way that displays the jugular vein and carotid artery images Stacked, jugular vein above the carotid artery to bring the central image line of the jugular vein 24 and carotid artery 26 into Substantial vertical alignment in the Sonographic transverse image plane.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified analyzing image data of a blood vessel, as disclosed in Suzuki in view of Toma, by classifying the blood vessel as either an artery or a vein based on a position of the blood vessel, as disclosed in Selzer. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow for establishment of a Standardized, repeatable reference position from which all Subsequent transducer manipulations are made, as taught in Selzer (see para. 0048).
Claim 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toma, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Blaivas et al. (US 20130131501 A1, published May 23, 2013), hereinafter referred to as Blaivas.
Regarding claim 43, Suzuki in view of Toma teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 above.
Suzuki in view of Toma teaches analyzing image data of a blood vessel, but does not explicitly teach classifying a blood vessel as either an artery or a vein based on a compressibility of the blood vessel.
Whereas, Blaivas, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein analyzing the image data further comprises classifying a blood vessel as either an artery or a vein based on a compressibility of the blood vessel (see para. 0088 – “FIGS. 23 and 24 schematically depict the differential compressibility of veins and arteries as presented on screen images on touch screen 208 under the "Locate vessel" procedure of the access menu 280…The larger blood vessel is designated to be a vein V and the smaller blood vessel to be an artery A since the vein V collapses more so than the artery A upon exposure to the downward force.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified analyzing image data of a blood vessel, as disclosed in Suzuki in view of Toma, by classifying a blood vessel as either an artery or a vein based on a compressibility of the blood vessel, as disclosed in Blaivas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to use the characteristic of veins and arteries, of thinner walled veins will collapse while thicker walled arteries will retain their substantially circular cross-sectional shape, to identify the target vessel, as taught in Blaivas (see para. 0087).
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Toma, as applied to claim 21 above, and in further view of Thompson et al. (US 20180158201 A1, published June 7, 2018 with a priority date of June 7, 2018), hereinafter referred to as Thompson.
Regarding claim 46, Suzuki in view of Toma teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 21 above.
Suzuki in view of Toma teaches analyzing image data of an artery, but does not explicitly teach fitting the artery to an oval.
Whereas, Thompson, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein analyzing the image data further comprises fitting the artery to an oval (see para. 0056 – “Since vessel centre points are employed for registration in the approach described herein, ellipses are fitted to those contours to derive centre points in each ultrasound image (as per FIG. 3g ).”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified analyzing image data of an artery, as disclosed in Suzuki in view of Toma, by fitting the artery to an oval, as disclosed in Thompson. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to produce reliable ellipse centers and exclude outliers by defining minimal and maximal values for the (short axis) length of an ellipse and for the ratio of the axes of the ellipse, as taught in Thompson (see para. 0056).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Kadokura et al. (US 20100217125 A1, published August 26, 2010) discloses defining an ROI in a displayed image that includes tissues and a blood vessel (Fig. 7; see para. 0188-0189).
Yamagata et al. (US 20070286469 A1, published December 13, 2007) discloses the ellipse model substantially matches with a horizontal cross section of a blood vessel (Fig. 16A-16B; see para. 0098).
Kondoh (US 20140371593 A1, published December 18, 2014) discloses real-time adjustment of the ultrasound probe to a Suitable angle, thus enabling simple IMT measurement.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM EST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 571-272-2714. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798