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 .
35 USC § 112(f) or 112 (pre-AIA ), Sixth Paragraph
CLAIM INTERPRETATION
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim limitation:
“an information processing unit” recited in claims 1, 2, 3, and dependent claims thereafter has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “executes” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) above has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
For “an information processing unit” recited in claims 1, 2, 3, and dependent claims thereafter, the specification (0034) discloses the following:
[0034] The information processing unit 26 may be configured by one or a plurality of processors that execute a program to realize functions of a phasing addition unit 30, a B-mode image generation unit 32, an image processing unit 34, a Doppler processing unit 36, a Doppler waveform generation unit 38, and a color Doppler processing unit 40.
Therefore, “an information processing unit” recited in claims 1, 2, 3, and dependent claims thereafter have been interpreted as being any image display device or any equivalent structures in light of the specification for the purpose of examination.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-10, 14-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sasaki; Takuya (US 2013/0006111, hereinafter Sasaki ‘111).
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 an information processing unit that executes processing on a reception signal output from the reception unit, wherein the information processing unit generates Doppler waveform data based on the reception signal (0046-0047, 0062, 0063, 0090-0093, 0117, 0124, 0125), determines whether an observation site is an artery or a vein based on the Doppler waveform data (0024, 0051, 0134, 0135), and decides a display range of blood flow velocity indicated by a Doppler waveform according to a determination result (0024, 0051, 0053, 0054, 0135).
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 (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 an information processing unit that executes processing on a reception signal output from the reception unit, wherein the information processing unit generates Doppler waveform data based on the reception signal (0046-0047, 0062, 0063, 0090-0093, 0117, 0124, 0125), determines whether an observation site 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 (0024, 0051, 0068-0076, 0096, 0100, 0134-0136), and decides a display range of blood flow velocity indicated by a Doppler waveform according to a determination result (0024, 0051, 0053, 0054, 0135).
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 an information processing unit that executes processing on a reception signal output from the reception unit, wherein the information processing unit generates Doppler waveform data and color (0068-0074, hue is color) Doppler data based on the reception signal (0046-0047, 0062, 0063, 0090-0093, 0117, 0124, 0125), determines whether an observation site is an artery or a vein based on the color (0068-0074, hue is color) Doppler data (0024, 0051, 0134, 0135), and decides a display range of blood flow velocity indicated by a Doppler waveform according to a determination result (0024, 0051, 0053, 0054, 0135).
In re claims 5, 7, 9, Sasaki ‘111 teaches wherein the information processing unit decides a scale factor in displaying the Doppler waveform according to the determination result (0024, 0038, 0040, 0041, 0044, 0050-0055, etc.).
In re claims 6, 8, 10, Sasaki ‘111 teaches wherein the information processing unit decides 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).
In re claim 14, 15, 16, Sasaki ‘111 teaches further comprising: a pulsation detection device that detects pulsation of the subject, wherein the information processing unit determines whether the observation site is an artery or a vein at a timing corresponding to the pulsation of the subject (0081, 0108, 0137).
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) 4, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 in view of Grunwald et al. (US 2007/0016072, hereinafter Grunwald ‘072).
In re claims 4 and 13, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach 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 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 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 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 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 in view of Khair; Mohammad Mohammad (US 2020/0008686, hereinafter Khair ‘686).
In re claims 11-12, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach wherein the information processing unit determines 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 information processing unit determines 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 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 in view of Khair; Eibl et al. (US 2018/0353154, hereinafter Eibl ‘154).
In re claim 12, Sasaki ‘111 fails to teach 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.
Eibl ‘154 teaches 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 (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 to include the features of Eibl ‘154 in order to determine whether the individual is undergoing compensated shock.
Claim(s) 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki ‘111 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 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.
Conclusion
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