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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2022/0287687 A1) in view of Nakayama (US 2016/0089090 A1).
PNG
media_image1.png
782
482
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 1, Liao discloses a mammography apparatus comprising (see Figure 1A attached herein showing mammography system #100): a bracket that rotatably supports a radiation source that emits radiation (see adjustable housing #101 that supports the X-ray device #102 as a radiation source that rotates as described in paragraph 0031 wherein the housing #101 is considered as the claimed bracket supporting the radiation source #102), at a plurality of imaging positions where incidence angles of the radiation to a breast of an examinee are different from each other (see paragraphs 0008-0010, 0031 and 0036 discussing the different angles to be used for imaging by rotating the device #101); a display that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired by an ultrasound probe, and are provided at different positions; and a processor, wherein the processor performs processing of displaying the ultrasound image according to a rotational position of the bracket (see paragraph 0037 discussing the use of a computer interface considered as the use of a processor for processing the information into an image to be displayed in a display unit as discussed in paragraph 0008 and paragraph 0037 from the X-ray device and the ultrasound device #122 as discussed in the Abstract and paragraph 0031).
Furthermore, Liao discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for a plurality of displays that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions. However, Nakayama discloses a plurality of displays that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions (see Figure 1 attached herein
PNG
media_image2.png
401
621
media_image2.png
Greyscale
showing monitor #16 and monitor set #20 showing the images taken accordingly as discussed in paragraphs 0061-0066). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a plurality of displays that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions as taught by Nakayama in combination with Liao’s display due to design choice since duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-07.2022].
With respect to claim 2, Liao discloses the claimed inventio as stated above except for in a case of switching between the plurality of displays according to the rotational position, in a case where there is the plurality of displays that can be visually recognized by an operator, the processor displays the ultrasound image by preferentially switching to the display close to the breast. However, Nakayama discloses having a plurality of displays that display the image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions (see Figure 1 attached herein showing monitor #16 and monitor set #20 showing the images taken as discussed in paragraphs 0061-0066; wherein the user can use a monitor according to his/her preference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in a case of switching between the plurality of displays according to the rotational position, in a case where there is the plurality of displays that can be visually recognized by an operator, the processor displays the ultrasound image by preferentially switching to the display close to the breast as taught by Nakayama in combination with Liao’s display due to design choice and user’s preference as an optional step wherein duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-07.2022].
With respect to claim 3, Liao discloses the display is direct-viewing electronic displays (implicitly taught by discussing displayed in a display unit as discussed in paragraph 0008 and paragraph 0037, wherein it is known that display devices require electronic components).
With respect to claim 10, Liao discloses A display method of a mammography apparatus (see Figure 1A attached herein showing mammography system #100), the display method comprising: via a computer, performing processing of displaying an ultrasound image of a breast acquired by an ultrasound probe, a display, which display the ultrasound image (see paragraph 0037 discussing the use of a computer interface considered as the use of a processor for processing the information into an image to be displayed in a display unit as discussed in paragraph 0008 and paragraph 0037 from the X-ray device and the ultrasound device #122 as discussed in the Abstract and paragraph 0031) and are provided at different positions, according to a rotational position of a bracket that rotatably supports a radiation source that emits radiation, at a plurality of imaging positions (see adjustable housing #101 that supports the X-ray device #102 as a radiation source that rotates as described in paragraph 0031 wherein the housing #101 is considered as the claimed bracket supporting the radiation source #102) where incidence angles of the radiation to the breast of an examinee are different from each other (see paragraphs 0008-0010, 0031 and 0036 discussing the different angles to be used for imaging by rotating the device #101).
Furthermore, Liao discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for a plurality of displays that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired by switching between the plurality of displays. However, Nakayama discloses having a plurality of displays that display the image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions (see Figure 1 attached herein showing monitor #16 and monitor set #20 showing the images taken as discussed in paragraphs 0061-0066; wherein the user can use a monitor according to his/her preference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in a case of switching between the plurality of displays according to the rotational position, in a case where there is the plurality of displays that can be visually recognized by an operator, the processor displays the ultrasound image by preferentially switching to the display close to the breast as taught by Nakayama in combination with Liao’s display due to design choice for the amount of displays and user’s preference by visually selecting an option of display with no restriction other than user’s preference according to his/her positioning with respect to any display available to look or preferred display location to look at during the procedure; wherein duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-07.2022].
With respect to claim 11 Liao discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a display program of a mammography apparatus (see Figure 1A attached herein showing mammography system #100), the display program causing a computer to execute processing of displaying an ultrasound image of a breast acquired by an ultrasound probe, which display the ultrasound image (see paragraph 0037 discussing the use of a computer interface considered as the use of a processor for processing the information into an image to be displayed in a display unit as discussed in paragraph 0008 and paragraph 0037 from the X-ray device and the ultrasound device #122 as discussed in the Abstract and paragraph 0031) and are provided at different positions, according to a rotational position of a bracket that rotatably supports a radiation source that emits radiation (see adjustable housing #101 that supports the X-ray device #102 as a radiation source that rotates as described in paragraph 0031 wherein the housing #101 is considered as the claimed bracket supporting the radiation source #102), at a plurality of imaging positions where incidence angles of the radiation to the breast of an examinee are different from each other (see paragraphs 0008-0010, 0031 and 0036 discussing the different angles to be used for imaging by rotating the device #101).
Furthermore, Liao discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for a plurality of displays that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired by switching between the plurality of displays. However, Nakayama discloses having a plurality of displays that display the image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions (see Figure 1 attached herein showing monitor #16 and monitor set #20 showing the images taken as discussed in paragraphs 0061-0066; wherein the user can use a monitor according to his/her preference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have in a case of switching between the plurality of displays according to the rotational position, in a case where there is the plurality of displays that can be visually recognized by an operator, the processor displays the ultrasound image by preferentially switching to the display close to the breast as taught by Nakayama in combination with Liao’s display due to design choice for the amount of displays and user’s preference by visually selecting an option of display with no restriction other than user’s preference according to his/her positioning with respect to any display available to look or preferred display location to look at during the procedure; wherein duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960); See MPEP 2144.04 Legal Precedent as Source of Supporting Rationale [R-07.2022].
Claims 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2022/0287687 A1) and Nakayama (US 2016/0089090 A1) in view of Hannemann et al. (2022/0030172 A1)
With respect to claim 4, Liao and Nakayama disclose the claimed invention as stated above except for specifying that a display is projection-type electronic displays which display a projection image from a projector. However, Hannemann discloses a display is projection-type electronic displays which display a projection image from a projector (see paragraphs 0072 and 0107). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a display is projection-type electronic displays which display a projection image from a projector as taught by Hannemann in combination with Liao and Nakayama’s display units for the purpose of providing an alternative of screen type as a design choice to see an image according to user’s preference to see the image processed or visualized the procedure of rearranged or reposition for acquiring a clear image for diagnosis.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/13/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the claimed limitations of “plurality of displays that display an ultrasound image of the breast acquired, and are provided at different positions” is not merely a “duplication of parts” but rather lies in control (rotational position x automatic switching logic) in which, in conjunction with an apparatus state of the rotational position of the bracket, a display destination of the ultrasound image is automatically switched between the plurality of displays. Applicant contends that Liao in view of Nakayama discloses at best a distribution/viewing of a radiation image display system and not “displaying an ultrasound image acquired by an ultrasound probe on a plurality of displays provided at different positions, and switching a display destination according to a rotational position of the bracket.” Furthermore, applicant contends that having the multiple displays is different since it is essential that the processor “performs processing of displaying the ultrasound image by switching between the plurality of displays according to a rotational bracket.” This introduces a control logic that associates an apparatus state with a display destination. Liao has no necessity to incorporate Nakayamato on a separate viewing device since Liao is directed towards co-localizing mammography and 3D ultrasound in a rapid succession without movement of the breast to improve accuracy. Liao is capable to acquire a combination of two sets of 3D images of different modalities. Therefore, there is no motivation to add a display.
The examiner disagrees with applicant’s arguments because Liao discloses a system having a rotating bracket acquiring different images as the bracket is rotated to acquire said image of a region. The image displayed changes (switches) as the bracket is rotated or change in position to a new position, hence providing a different view of the region considered as a different image. A new position/location or orientation is displayed in the display device (see paragraphs 0036-0037). Having more than one display device in combination with imaging systems, including ultrasound device is a common practice; and can be used for different purposes for example: one screen with setting instructions and a second screen with the image acquired; both screen showing the same image acquired where one of the screens is a terminal screen like a tablet so that the provider can move around the patient, one screen showing a previously acquire image or a model image and a second screen showing the acquire image etc. If applicant means that the display devices display two different images at the same time, one representing the first orientation and a second image from the second orientation in a different display device, the claim language does not support said limitation. The term “switch” has been given the plain meaning of change the image been displayed once the device is acquiring an image in a different orientation. However, the claim language does not clarify if each display device displays different images following the path of rotation or the same image on both display devices once the bracket is rotated where the image is different from the first image view due to a different location; or if different modalities are providing different images. Due to the lack of specificity about the function and purpose of the plurality of display devices, having more than one display device has been given the broadest reasonable interpretation where any of the options as discussed above can be applied as a common practice according to its suitability as a design choice. For the reasons as stated above, the 35 U.S.C 103 rejection is maintained and considered proper.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art cited in the PTO 892 not relied upon discloses one or more display devices with an ultrasound device combined.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm.
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, Raymond Keith can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights