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.
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, 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki; Takuya (US 2013/0006111, hereinafter Sasaki ‘111) in view of Satake (US 5,148,808, hereinafter Satake ‘808).
In re claim 1, Sasaki ‘111 teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising:
a transmission unit that transmits an ultrasonic wave to a subject via an ultrasound probe (0023, 0024; 0026-0027);
a reception unit that receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the subject via the ultrasound probe (0023, 0024; 0026-0027); and
a processor that executes processing on a reception signal output from the reception unit,
wherein the processor is configured to:
generate, based on the reception signal, Doppler waveform data regarding a blood flow in a blood vessel that is a diagnosis target (0046-0047, 0062, 0063, 0090-0093, 0117, 0124, 0125),
decide a different display range of blood flow velocity indicated by the Doppler waveform data depending on whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein (0024, 0051, 0053, 0054, 0126, 0064, 0135, 0136).
Satake ‘808 teaches determine whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein based on the Doppler waveform data (col. 6, lines 25-33).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 to include the features of Satake ‘808 in order to improve detectable low velocity in the Doppler flow mapping image without degrading aliasing velocity in the blood flow pattern waveform.
In re claim 2, Sasaki ‘111 teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: a transmission unit that transmits an ultrasonic wave to a subject via an ultrasound probe; a reception unit that receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the subject via the ultrasound probe (0023, 0024; 0026-0027); and a processor that executes processing on a reception signal output from the reception unit (0023, 0024; 0026-0027), wherein the processor is configured to: generate, based on the reception signal, Doppler waveform data regarding a blood flow in a blood vessel that is a diagnosis target (0046-0047, 0062, 0063, 0090-0093, 0117, 0124, 0125),
Satake ‘808 teaches determine whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein based on a degree of variation in a Doppler frequency of a plurality of the reception signals obtained through a plurality of times of transmission and reception of the ultrasonic wave in one direction (col. 3, line 40-col. 4, line 15; col. 5, lines 12-65; col. 6, line 25-col. 7 line 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 to include the features of Satake ‘808 in order to improve detectable low velocity in the Doppler flow mapping image without degrading aliasing velocity in the blood flow pattern waveform.
In re claim 3, Sasaki ‘111 teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising: a transmission unit that transmits an ultrasonic wave to a subject via an ultrasound probe (0023, 0024; 0026-0027); a reception unit that receives the ultrasonic wave reflected by the subject via the ultrasound probe (0023, 0024; 0026-0027); and a processor that executes processing on a reception signal output from the reception unit, wherein the processor is configured to: generate, based on the reception signal, Doppler waveform data and color (0068-0074, hue is color) Doppler data regarding a blood flow in a blood vessel that is a diagnosis target (0046-0047, 0062, 0063, 0090-0093, 0117, 0124, 0125),
Satake ‘808 teaches determine whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein based on the color Doppler data (col. 4, line 16-col. 5, line 35; col. 6, lines 25-33).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 to include the features of Satake ‘808 in order to improve detectable low velocity in the Doppler flow mapping image without degrading aliasing velocity in the blood flow pattern waveform.
In re claims 5, 7, 9, Sasaki ‘111 teaches wherein the processor is configured to decide a scale factor in displaying the blood flow velocity according to the determination result (0024, 0038, 0040, 0041, 0044, 0050-0055, etc.).
In re claims 6, 8, 10, Sasaki ‘111 teaches wherein the processor is configured to decide the scale factor according to a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data in addition to the determination result (0097, 0050-0055, 0102-0105).
Claim(s) 4, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 in view of Grunwald et al. (US 2007/0016072, hereinafter Grunwald ‘072).
In re claims 4 and 13, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach wherein processor is configured to determine whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein based on whether an aliasing phenomenon occurs in the color Doppler data; wherein the information processing unit determines whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on whether an aliasing phenomenon occurs in the Doppler waveform data.
Grunwald ‘072 teaches the processor is configured to determine whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on whether an aliasing phenomenon occurs in the color Doppler data (0221-0224); wherein the information processing unit determines whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on whether an aliasing phenomenon occurs in the Doppler waveform data (0221-0224).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 to include the features of Grunwald ‘072 in order to reliably identify transitions between venous and arterial or heart flows.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 in view of Khair; Mohammad Mohammad (US 2020/0008686, hereinafter Khair ‘686).
In re claims 11-12, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on a time differential value of a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data; wherein the information processing unit determines whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on a time integral value of a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data.
Khair ‘686 teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on a time differential value of a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data (0160, time differential value is a first derivative); wherein the information processing unit determines whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on a time integral value of a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data (0017, 0061, 0096, 0146, 0165, 0203, 0220).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 to include the features of Khair ‘686 in order to generate a set of physiological parameters in response to the balance parameter useful in clinical assessment of a patient's health condition.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 in view of Khair; Eibl et al. (US 2018/0353154, hereinafter Eibl ‘154).
In re claim 12, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on a time integral value of a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data.
Eibl ‘154 teaches wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the observation site is an artery or a vein based on a time integral value of a Doppler waveform line obtained from the Doppler waveform data (0019, 0022, 0078, 0098, 0100, 0101, 0187).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 to include the features of Eibl ‘154 in order to determine whether the individual is undergoing compensated shock.
Claim(s) 14, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 in view of Lee, Min Hwa (JP 11-235342, hereinafter Lee ‘342).
In re claim 14, 15, 16, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach further comprising: a pulsation detection device that detects pulsation of the subject, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein at a timing corresponding to the pulsation of the subject.
Lee ‘342 teaches further comprising: a pulsation detection device that detects pulsation of the subject, wherein the processor is configured to determine whether the blood vessel is an artery or a vein (0010-0012; 0020-0022, 0024-0026) at a timing corresponding to the pulsation of the subject (0009, 0020, 0023, 0025).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 to include the features of Lee ‘342 in order to provide additional detection features by using a temporal change in a blood flow velocity pattern to distinguishing the types of blood vessels.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 in view of He et al. (US 2003/0100833, hereinafter He ‘833).
In re claims 17-19, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach wherein a repetition frequency, when the transmission unit transmits the ultrasonic wave is set according to the display range.
He ‘833 teaches wherein a repetition frequency when the transmission unit transmits the ultrasonic wave is set according to the display range (0109).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Sasaki ‘111 and Satake ‘808 to include the features of He ‘833 in order to be set high enough to prevent aliasing, and low enough to provide adequate detection of low flow.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-19 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights