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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) have been considered however as indicated below a support information editing unit is recited in claim 7, the match rate calculation unit is recited in claim 8, and the output unit is recited in claim 10 with functional language recited for each unit. Therefore claims 7, 8, and 10 invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Applicant’s remarks with respect to the claim rejections under 35 USC § 112(b) have been considered. Claim 1 remains rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) due to the recitation of “a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed by the examiner” as recited below. Therefore dependent claims 2-10 are also rejected.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 35 USC § 103 rejections of claims 1-10 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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities: each of claims 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 recite “each of a plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with”, however this should be read as “each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined [[the]] support information is associated with”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 3 recites “a combination of the respective match rate and a respect measurement content”, however this should be read as “a combination of the respective match rate and a respective measurement content”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
A support information editing unit in claim 7.
The match rate calculation unit in claim 8.
The output unit in claim 10.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
In regards to the targeted cross section the output unit , the match rate calculation unit, and the support information editing unit. The specification discloses in paragraph [0036] of the pre-grant publication “The controller 26 includes at least one of a general-purpose processor (for example, a central processing unit (CPU) or the like) or a dedicated processor…The controller 26 may be configured with a plurality of processing devices that are present at physically separated positions and that cooperate with each other…The controller 26 controls each unit of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 10”. Therefore each of the claimed units are being interpreted as a processor.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1-10 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim 1 recites “wherein each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined support information is used to support formation of a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed by the examiner”. Claim 1 previously recites “a targeted cross-section which is a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed”. Therefore it is unclear if this is the same or different from the targeted cross-section. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined support information is used to support formation of the cross-section classification of the ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed by the examiner”.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected due to their dependency.
Regarding claim 8, claim 8 recites “wherein the match rate calculation unit processor calculates a new match rate for the same targeted cross-section again”. However the match rate calculation unit processor has not been previously defined therefore it is unclear what the match rate calculation unit processor is referring to. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein the processor calculates a new match rate for the same targeted cross-section again”.
Regarding claim 10, claim 10 recites “wherein the output unit outputs, after a plurality of examination processes have ended, each forming an ultrasound tomographic image of a different targeted cross-section, the processor outputs an examination report that includes”. The output unit has not been previously defined therefore it is unclear what the output unit is referring to. Additionally it is unclear if it is the output unit or the processor that is outputting an examination report. For examination purposes the limitation will be interpreted as “wherein, after a plurality of examination processes have ended, each forming an ultrasound tomographic image of a different targeted cross-section, the processor outputs an examination report that includes”.
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.
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, 4, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (US 20220175345) and further in view of Hyun (US 20230062672).
Regarding claim 1, Kasahara discloses an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Title – “Ultrasonic diagnosis system”, [0003] – “An ultrasonic diagnosis system is composed of an ultrasonic diagnosis apparatus”) comprising:
a processor ([0037] – “The main unit 10 is composed of electronic circuits, processors, storage units, and so on”), configured to:
specify a targeted cross-section which is a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed ([0029] – “In an ultrasonic diagnosis system according to an embodiment, a target model cross section corresponding to the observation cross section is determined in a tissue model”, [0009] – “generating probe operation support information based on a spatial relationship between the current model cross section and a target model cross section”);
execute cross-section recognition processing on a target image to calculate a match rate between a cross-section classification of the target image and the targeted cross-section, wherein the target image is an ultrasound tomographic image formed in response to an instruction from an examiner ([0052] – “A difference calculating unit 42 is a calculator that calculates difference information based on spatial relationship between the current cross section and a target cross section in a tissue model”); and
output, based on a support information database in which each of a plurality of pieces of predetermined support information related to an operation of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus is stored in association with a respective match rate among a plurality of match rates, support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate ([0053] – “In the display processing unit 24, operation guide images are integrated into display images”, [0064], [0065], Figs. 7 and 8 show a difference of support information based on the similarity scores),
wherein each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined support information is used to support formation of a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed by the examiner ([0053] – “In the display processing unit 24, operation guide images are integrated into display images”, [0064] – “Difference information D is generated between the current cross section 84 and the target cross section 86, and based on this difference information D, operation support information is generated”, [0065], Figs. 7 and 8 show a difference of support information based on the similarity scores),
Conversely Kasahara does not teach wherein in response to the calculated match rate being in a first numerical range, the processor outputs first predetermined support information, and
wherein in response to the calculated match rate being in a second numerical range different from the first numerical range, the processor outputs second predetermined support information.
However Hyun discloses wherein in response to the calculated match rate being in a first numerical range, the processor outputs first predetermined support information ([0148] – “when a matching rate of an obtained ultrasonic image with a standard image is 90% or less, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 may display guide information for guiding a user to again obtain an ultrasonic image for the standard view”), and
wherein in response to the calculated match rate being in a second numerical range different from the first numerical range, the processor outputs second predetermined support information ([0150] – “In a case in which a matching rate of the newly obtained ultrasonic image with the standard image is 90% or more, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 may display a message notifying that an ultrasonic image for the first standard view has been normally obtained”).
Hyun is an analogous art considering it is in the field of calculating a match rate between to cross sections.
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the first and second support information for different ranges of the match rate of Hyun to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to be aware of when the imaged cross section is satisfactory for the target cross section.
Regarding claim 4, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Kasahara further discloses wherein, in the support information database, each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective operation mode, among a plurality of operation modes, of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0041] – “The individual tomographic images are B-mode tomographic images”, Figs. 7 and 8 show a difference of support information based on the similarity scores and the B-mode images, [0028] discloses that the tissue model is a set of volume data obtained by ultrasound transmission and reception, therefore it can be interpreted that the probe can at least produce images in B-mode and 3D mode), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to an operation mode of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus corresponding to the target image ([0041] – “The individual tomographic images are B-mode tomographic images”, Figs. 7 and 8 show a difference of support information based on the similarity scores and the B-mode images, Fig. 11 shows an example of an output of an operation guide image based on the similarity score and the B-mode image).
Regarding claim 6, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Kasahara further discloses wherein, in the support information database, each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate, a respective first cross-section classification among a plurality of first cross-section classifications, and a second cross-section classification among a plurality of second cross-section classifications other than the first cross-section classification (([0052] – “A difference calculating unit 42 is a calculator that calculates difference information based on spatial relationship between the current cross section and a target cross section in a tissue model”, [0053] – “An operation support information generating unit 44 is a generator that generates operation support information based on the difference information”, therefore because the difference is based on the target cross- section and the current cross section the support information is associated with a combination of the difference [match rate], a first cross-section classification, and a second cross-section classification), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate, to the cross-section classification of the target image as the first cross-section classification, and to the targeted cross-section as the second cross-section classification ([0053] – “An operation support information generating unit 44 is a generator that generates operation support information based on the difference information”, therefore because the difference is based on the target cross-section and the current cross section the support information is associated with a combination of the difference [match rate], a first cross-section classification, and a second cross-section classification, Fig. 10 shows an operation support process and Fig. 11 shows an example of an output of an operation guide image based on the calculated difference between the first cross section and the second cross section).
Regarding claim 7, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kasahara does not teach further comprising: a support information editing unit that edits the support information in response to an instruction from the examiner of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus.
However Hyun discloses further comprising: a support information editing unit that edits the support information in response to an instruction from the examiner of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus ([0076] – “the standard views of the object may have been set in advance, and may be changed by a user”, [0161] – “a user input received through the user interface 1320”).
Hyun is an analogous art considering it is in the field of calculating a match rate between to cross sections.
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the editing of support information of Hyun to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to image another region of a second target and providing guidance for both targets.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (US 20220175345) and Hyun (US 20230062672), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Eiji (JP2020062290A).
Regarding claim 2, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kasahara does not teach wherein, in the support information database, each of a plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective display aspect among a plurality of display aspects, and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to a display aspect of the target image.
However Eiji discloses wherein, in the support information database, each of a plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective display aspect among a plurality of display aspects ([0009] – “a support information generating unit that generates support information to be provided to a user together with the real-time tomographic image based on reference data acquired from all or a part of the three-dimensional space”, [0039] – “the operation assistance image generation unit 34 calculates the deviation (or the direction of deviation) of the observation cross section from the target cross section based on the frame data set read from the memory 28, and generates an operation assistance image that assists in operating the 3D probe based on the deviation”), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to a display aspect of the target image ([0073] discloses that the operation support image is based on calculations from three similarity calculators, [0052] – “The real-time tomographic images as moving images and the support images as moving images may be stored in association with each other”).
Eiji is an analogous art considering it is in the field of calculating a similarity between two images to provide support.
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the display aspect of Li to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “makes it possible to provide support information to a user while displaying real-time tomographic images” (Eiji [0091]).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (US 20220175345) and Hyun (US 20230062672), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li (US 20200134825).
Regarding claim 3, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kasahara does not teach wherein, in the support information database, each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective measurement content among a plurality of measurement contents, and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to a measurement content of the target image.
However Li discloses wherein, in the support information database, each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective measurement content among a plurality of measurement contents ([0112] – “The geometric score computation unit 252 of the score computation unit 250 computes a predetermined geometric angle or distance as a geometric reference computation score G j 961 according to a positional relationship between the detected regions of the plurality of structures”, [0053] – “analyzes structure extraction results of a plurality of planes and progresses of values of the shape score, the geometric score, and the total score to perform determination as to whether to end target plane search…a plane having a highest total score as a plane of the target plane”), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to a measurement content of the target image ([0112] – “The geometric score computation unit 252 of the score computation unit 250 computes a predetermined geometric angle or distance as a geometric reference computation score G j 961 according to a positional relationship between the detected regions of the plurality of structures”, [0053] – “analyzes structure extraction results of a plurality of planes and progresses of values of the shape score, the geometric score, and the total score to perform determination as to whether to end target plane search…a plane having a highest total score as a plane of the target plane”, Fig. 17).
Li is an analogous art considering it is in the field of calculating a match score to determine a target 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 the apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the measurement content of Li to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because “it is possible to extract an image of a target plane from 2D or 3D image data acquired by a medical imaging apparatus with a small amount of computation and at high speed” (Li [0012]).
Claims 5 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (US 20220175345) and Hyun (US 20230062672), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN 112215843A).
Regarding claim 5, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kasahara does not teach wherein, in the support information database, each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective subject attribute among a plurality of subject attributes, and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to a subject attribute of a subject corresponding to the target image.
However Zhao discloses wherein, in the support information database, each of the plurality of pieces of predetermined the support information is associated with a combination of the respective match rate and a respective subject attribute among a plurality of subject attributes, ([0094] – “the three-dimensional ultrasound model corresponding to the target part to be scanned of the test object…The corresponding three-dimensional ultrasound model is a trained three-dimensional ultrasound model obtained based on information such as age, gender, height, and weight”, [0016] – “guiding the ultrasound probe to move according to the marker information contained in the standard image, and determining an ultrasound image whose matching degree value with the standard image exceeds a second preset matching degree value”), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the piece of predetermined support information associated with the calculated match rate and to a subject attribute of a subject corresponding to the target image (see paragraphs [0094] and [0016] of Zhao as cited above, [0010] – “loading a three-dimensional ultrasonic model corresponding to the target area to be scanned based on the acquired target area to be scanned, wherein the three-dimensional ultrasonic model contains at least one standard scanning section marked with probe position information and probe angle information; determining the position information and angle information of the current ultrasonic probe based on the current ultrasonic image and/or the current environmental image acquired by the visual sensor; and guiding the ultrasonic probe to move to the standard scanning section”, [0124] – “The first guidance area 1600 displays at least the current position and angle information of the ultrasound probe, the position and angle information of the probe corresponding to the standard scanning section, and operation prompts”).
Zhao is an analogous art considering it is in the field of calculating a match score to provide guidance to a target 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 the apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the attribute of a subject of Zhao to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “improves the speed and accuracy of ultrasonic probes in finding standard scanning sections.” (Zhao [0034]).
Regarding claim 8, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kasahara does not teach wherein the match rate calculation unit processor calculates a new match rate for the same targeted cross-section again after the support information has been output, and assigns, in a case where the new match rate is higher than the match rate before the support information is output, a priority flag to the support information in the support information database, and
the processor preferentially outputs the support information with the priority flag assigned, in a case where a plurality of pieces of the support information are associated with the new match rate in the support information database, over support information with no priority flag assigned.
However Zhao discloses wherein the match rate calculation unit processor calculates a new match rate for the same targeted cross-section again after the support information has been output, and assigns, in a case where the new match rate is higher than the match rate before the support information is output, a priority flag to the support information in the support information database ([0148] – “Guide the ultrasound probe to move according to the marking information contained in the standard image, and determine the ultrasound image whose matching degree value with the standard image exceeds the second preset matching degree value as the target ultrasound image”), and
the processor preferentially outputs the support information with the priority flag assigned, in a case where a plurality of pieces of the support information are associated with the new match rate in the support information database, over support information with no priority flag assigned ([0148] – “Guide the ultrasound probe to move according to the marking information contained in the standard image, and determine the ultrasound image whose matching degree value with the standard image exceeds the second preset matching degree value as the target ultrasound image”, [0054] – “the standard image and the target ultrasound image are also displayed in real time on a display; the matching degree value between the standard image and the target ultrasound image is also displayed in real time.).
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the priority of support information of Zhao to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it “improves the speed and accuracy of ultrasonic probes in finding standard scanning sections.” (Zhao [0034]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (US 20220175345) and Hyun (US 20230062672), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hattori (US 20240119588).
Regarding claim 9, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Conversely Kasahara does not teach wherein, during an examination along a plurality of examination processes, each forming an ultrasound tomographic image of a different targeted cross-section, the processor calculates the match rate for each examination process and stores the match rate in a memory, and
the processor outputs the calculated match rate for a completed examination process during the examination along the plurality of examination processes.
However Hyun discloses wherein, during an examination along a plurality of examination processes, each forming an ultrasound tomographic image of a different targeted cross-section, the processor calculates the match rate for each examination process […] (Fig. 5, [0099] – “The ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 may obtain a plurality of ultrasonic images for a plurality of sections of an object”, [0148] – “when a matching rate of an obtained ultrasonic image with a standard image is 90% or less, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 may display guide information for guiding a user to again obtain an ultrasonic image for the standard view”), and
the processor outputs the calculated match rate for a completed examination process during the examination along the plurality of examination processes (Fig. 5, [0148] – “when a matching rate of an obtained ultrasonic image with a standard image is 90% or less, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 may display guide information for guiding a user to again obtain an ultrasonic image for the standard view”).
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the examination along a plurality of examination processes of Hyun to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to provide accurate images from multiple angles of an organ or from multiple organs that are part of the same system.
Conversely Kasahara and Hyun do not teach stores the match rate in a memory.
However Hattori discloses stores the match rate in a memory ([0053] – “The storage device 203 stores a target image to be processed, an classification result and a numerical value thereof related to an input image generated by the classification unit 12, a feature similarity classification result and a numerical value thereof related to an input image generated by the feature similarity classification unit 13”).
Hattori is an analogous art considering it is in the field of calculating a similarity score for a target 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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the storing of the match rate of Hattori to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to view the image with the match rate for review at a later date for diagnosis or treatment.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasahara (US 20220175345) and Hyun (US 20230062672), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN 112215843A) and Hattori (US 20240119588).
Regarding claim 10, Kasahara and Hyun disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as cited in claim 1.
Kasahara further discloses wherein the output unit outputs, after a plurality of examination processes have ended, each forming an ultrasound tomographic image of a different targeted cross-section, the processor outputs an examination report that includes, […] the examination report associating information on the item tailored to the match rate corresponding to each targeted cross-section with the targeted cross-section (see Fig. 2 which is a report list of a plurality of examination processes for the heart including the type if approach and the tissue model used for each cross section),
Conversely Kasahara does not teach for each of the plurality of examination processes, item values for a plurality of items including the match rate and the support information output in a case of attempting to form an ultrasound tomographic image of a targeted cross-section related to the examination process,
However Zhao discloses for each of the plurality of examination processes, item values for a plurality of items including […] the support information output in a case of attempting to form an ultrasound tomographic image of a targeted cross-section related to the examination process ([0145] – “hospitals store matching images containing tagged information in local image databases, hospital alliance image databases, or cloud image databases, they will classify and store the matching images, for example, storing all matching images related to "heart" in a sub-image set”),
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the stored matching images of Zhao into the report of Kasahara to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to see view the images acquired and view the differences between the image acquired and the target image.
Conversely Kasahara and Zhao do not teach for each of the plurality of examination processes, item values for a plurality of items including the match rate.
However Hattori discloses for each of the plurality of examination processes, item values for a plurality of items including the match rate ([0053] – “The storage device 203 stores a target image to be processed, an classification result and a numerical value thereof related to an input image generated by the classification unit 12, a feature similarity classification result and a numerical value thereof related to an input image generated by the feature similarity classification unit 13”).
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 apparatus of Kasahara to incorporate the similarity classification result of Hattori into the report of Kasahara to achieve the same results. One would have motivation to combine because it would allow one to view how close each image is to the desired target cross section for each of the cross sections and therefore one could determine how accurate a diagnosis will be.
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 RENEE C LANGHALS whose telephone number is (571)272-6258. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Thurs. alternate Fridays 8:30-6.
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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
/R.C.L./ Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/CHRISTOPHER KOHARSKI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights