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 .
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: 200 in fig. 4. 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
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 14, line 5 “the examination procedure”, should read “the registered examination procedure”,
Claim 14, lines 7-8 “the examination procedure”, should read “the registered examination procedure”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the examination that is registered" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite registering an examination.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “when the examination procedure it to be executed” in lines 7-8 which is considered indefinite. It is not clear to the examination which procedure is to be executed as the claim previously recites a plurality of examination procedures. For purpose of examination and this office action it is being interpreted that one of the plurality of examination procedures listed is considered the examination procedure to be executed.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the second ultrasonic image data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite obtaining a second ultrasonic image data.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the second ultrasonic image data" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not previously recite obtaining second ultrasonic image data.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more:
Claims 1 and 15 recite “a processing circuit configured: to determine which cross section first ultrasonic image data represents, the first ultrasonic image data being image data designated as a reference image for an examination including a process of acquiring an ultrasonic image”.
The limitation of determining which cross section first ultrasonic image data represents, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuit configured” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuit” language, “determine” in the context of the claim encompasses a user viewing ultrasound data and determining what is being imaged. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According the claims recite an abstract idea. Additionally, the step of “acquire information for enabling a user to acquire the determined cross section” is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuit configured” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuit” language, “acquire” in the context of the claim encompasses a user either mentally or by hand determination a position the probe needs to be placed in order to obtain the cross section.
The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. the additional step of claims 1 and 15 is a storing step, the storing of the acquired information in a storage device is considered extra-solution activity in the field. The processing circuit is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function of ranking information based on a determined amount of use) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The storing of the acquired information in a storage device has been determined to be well-understood, routine, and conventional activity in the field. See MPEP 2106.05(d)(II). Additionally, the element of using a processing circuit to perform the determining and acquiring amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive step. For these reasons, the additional steps do not result in the claim as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 2, 5, and 8-13 further limit the what information is being acquired. The claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application or amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claim 3 recites the additional element of a trained model for performing the determining. The trained model is recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive step.
Claim 4 further limits the storage device and the information. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Claims 6-7 recite the additional step of collecting and displaying data which has been determined to be a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.A).
Claim 14 recites “the processing circuit is configured to…acquire information associated with the first ultrasonic image”.
The limitation of acquiring information associated with the first ultrasonic image, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “processing circuit configured” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “processing circuit” language, “acquire” in the context of the claim encompasses a user viewing ultrasound image and the location in which it was acquired and determining the position the probe was in when obtaining the image. If a claim under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. According the claims recite an abstract idea. The claim further recites the processing circuit is configured to display information on a display which has been determined to be a mental process. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III.A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable by Mienkina et al. (US 20180344286, hereinafter Mienkina).
Regarding claim 1, Mienkina teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (ultrasound system 100 and 200 in figs.. 1-2) comprising a processing circuit (the electronic circuitry of system 100/200 in figs. 1-2) configured:
to determine which cross section first ultrasonic image data represents ([0033] and fig. 3 disclose a method for identifying a target scan plane which corresponds to the represented cross section first ultrasonic image data), the first ultrasonic image data being image data designated as a reference image for an examination including a process of acquiring an ultrasonic image ([0040] further discloses the desired target plane is a reference image used for generating a real-time image);
to acquire information for enabling a user to acquire the determined cross section ([0038] and fig. 3 disclose in step 310 acquiring probe position information for the target plane); and
to store the acquired information in a storage device in association with the first ultrasonic image data ([0038] and fig. 3 disclose in step 312 storing the probe position data in a memory).
Regarding claim 2, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the information includes at least one of a scan position for acquiring the cross section, an ultrasound probe scan policy, and an anatomical schema ([0038] discloses the information includes probe position information (scan position) for the target plane).
Regarding claim 3, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured to determine the cross section based on a trained model having been trained with labeled data ([0037] “the target plane may be identified automatically by the computing device using image recognition trained via machine learning”).
Regarding claim 5, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured to acquire the information using information obtained from a position sensor or a pressure sensor, or using a camera image, at time when a first ultrasonic scan for acquiring the first ultrasonic image data is executed ([0038] discloses the probe position data is tracked using one or more probe position sensors when the target plane is being acquired).
Regarding claim 8, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured to acquire a first camera image resultant of capturing an image of an ultrasound probe position and a subject at time when the first ultrasonic image data is acquired, as the information ([0057] and fig. 7 disclose collecting visible light images of the user via a camera which includes capturing the ultrasound probe position and the subject when a first ultrasound image data is being acquired).
Regarding claim 9, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 8, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured:
to acquire second position information that is a relative position of the ultrasound probe and the subject at time when the second ultrasonic image data is being collected ([0049] discloses obtaining tracking information for the probe include the position in response to the probe being used to image the anatomy of interest); and
to display an icon indicating a current position and an orientation of the ultrasound probe, in a manner superimposed over the first camera image based on the second position information ([0052] “as the operator moves and positions the probe, the depicted location of the probe may change to reflect the updated location of the probe”. Also see figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 10, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured to acquire first position information that is a relative position of an ultrasound probe and a subject at time when the first ultrasonic image data is acquired, as the information ([0038] discloses obtaining probe position data using a probe position tracking device that includes the current probe location and orientation relative to reference markers on the subject while obtaining the target plane).
Regarding claim 11, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 10, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured:
to acquire a second camera image resultant of capturing an image of the ultrasound probe and the subject at time when the second ultrasonic image data is being collected ([0057] and fig. 7 disclose collecting visible light images of the user via a camera which includes capturing the ultrasound probe position and the subject when a first ultrasound image data is being acquired); and
to display an icon indicating a position and an orientation of the ultrasound probe at time when the first ultrasonic image data is acquired, in a manner superimposed over the second camera image, based on the first position information ([0052] “as the operator moves and positions the probe, the depicted location of the probe may change to reflect the updated location of the probe”. Also see figs. 5-7).
Regarding claim 12, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 5, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured to acquire video data before and after the first ultrasonic scan, as the information ([0029] discloses the acquired visible light images include video. [0057] and [0060] disclose the light images are obtained in real-time during the guidance procedure, meaning the processing circuitry is at least configured to acquire video data before and after the ultrasonic scan).
Regarding claim 15, Mienkina teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic method (methods shown in figs. 3-4) comprising: determining which cross section first ultrasonic image data represents ([0033] and fig. 3 disclose a method for identifying a target scan plane which corresponds to the represented cross section first ultrasonic image data), the first ultrasonic image data being image data designated as a reference image for an examination including a process of acquiring an ultrasonic image ([0040] further discloses the desired target plane is a reference image used for generating a real-time image);
acquiring information for enabling a user to acquire the determined cross section ([0040] further discloses the desired target plane is a reference image used for generating a real-time image); and
storing the acquired information in a storage device in association with the first ultrasonic image data ([0038] and fig. 3 disclose in step 312 storing the probe position data in a memory).
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mienkina in view of Hong et al. (US 20240156430, hereinafter Hong).
Regarding claim 4, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above.
Mienkina further teaches the information is updatable based on an update of a diagnosis guideline ([0015] discloses the probe position at each target scan plane is stored, thereby updating the stored information based on a diagnosis guideline (target scan plane)).
Mienkina does not specifically teach the storage device is a cloud, and the information is information that is stored on the cloud.
However,
Hong in a similar field of endeavor teaches the storage device is a cloud and the information is stored on the cloud ([0170] discloses the storage medium is a cloud storage system. [0097] discloses storing the information in the storage).
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 storage device of Mienkina for the cloud storage of Hong because it amounts to simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain the predictable results of storing the information.
Claim(s) 6-7 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mienkina in view of Wimer (US 20140249405).
Regarding claim 6, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 1, as set forth above. Mienkina does not specifically teach the processing circuit is configured to, upon receiving an execution of the examination that is registered, display a plurality of examination procedures as a list, in an order of execution, on a display, and the processing circuit is configured to, when the examination procedure is to be executed, acquire the information associated with the first ultrasonic image data from the storage device, and to display the information on the display.
However,
Wimer in a similar field of endeavor teaches the processing circuit is configured to, upon receiving an execution of the examination that is registered, display a plurality of examination procedures as a list, in an order of execution, on a display ([0032] “a procedure pick list populated from a table (where the table may include file names of positioning still or video and reference still or cine to be played/displayed)”), and
the processing circuit is configured to, when the examination procedure is to be executed, acquire the information associated with the first ultrasonic image data from the storage device, and to display the information on the display ([0034] “programming so all settings are table driven by the selected procedure and not user adjustable”. [0037] “At 200, the operator selects (e.g., from a menu or by keying-in a selection) a treatment target. For example, this may be a joint for steroid injection. At 202, the system may self-calibrate. At 204 the system displays the guidance and/or reference images”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing circuit disclosed by Mienkina to have the processing circuit be configured to, upon receiving an execution of the examination that is registered, display a plurality of examination procedures as a list, in an order of execution, on a display, and the processing circuit is configured to, when the examination procedure is to be executed, acquire the information associated with the first ultrasonic image data from the storage device, and to display the information on the display in order to improve placement related to anatomical targeting, as recognized by Wimer ([0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Mienkina in view of Wimer teaches the apparatus of claim 6, as set forth above. Mienkina further teaches the processing circuit is configured to display second ultrasonic image data acquired during an execution of the examination procedure, on the display (figs. 5-6 shown the processing circuit is configured to display a second ultrasound image data (image 604) acquired during an execution of the examination procedure on the display).
Regarding claim 13, Mienkina teaches the apparatus of claim 12, as set forth above. Mienkina does not specifically teach the video data is edited data resultant of deleting data unnecessary for guiding the ultrasound probe.
However,
Wimer in a similar field of endeavor teaches the video data is edited data resultant of deleting data unnecessary for guiding the ultrasound probe ([0027] discloses the reference view is looped cine (video) that shows any time points intended for the procedure, meaning time points that are not intended for the procedure are deleted and not shown as part of the reference image).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus disclosed by Mienkina to have the video data be edited data resultant of deleting data unnecessary for guiding the ultrasound probe in order to reduce the amount of data that is required to be stored, thereby improving storage capacity.
Regarding claim 14, Mienkina teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (ultrasound systems 100/200 in figs. 1-2) comprising a processing circuit (the electronic circuitry of system 100/200 in figs. 1-2) configured to, receive an execution of a registered examination procedure for an examination including a process of acquiring an ultrasonic image (claim 15 discloses “receiving an indication of a first target anatomy to be imaged”), wherein
the processing circuit is configured to, when the examination procedure is to be executed, acquire information associated with first ultrasonic image data (claim 15 discloses “obtaining a first target probe position corresponding to a position of the ultrasound probe at which the first target anatomy is imageable in a first target scan plane”), the information being information for enabling a user to acquire a cross section of the first ultrasonic image data that is designated as a reference image for the examination, from a storage device (the first target probe position corresponds to the position to acquire a cross section of the first ultrasound image data), and to display the information on the display (figs. 5-7 show displaying the information on the display).
Mienkina does not specifically teach display the examination procedure as a list in an order of execution, on a display.
However,
Wimer in a similar field of endeavor teaches displaying the examination procedure as a list in an order of execution, on a display ([0032] “a procedure pick list populated from a table (where the table may include file names of positioning still or video and reference still or cine to be played/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 modified the processing circuit disclosed by Mienkina to have the processing circuit be configured to display the examination procedure as a list in an order of execution, on a display in order to improve placement related to anatomical targeting, as recognized by Wimer ([0002]).
Conclusion
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