DETAILED ACTION
Summary
Claims 1-14 are pending in the application. Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 112(b). Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 USC 103.
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 Objections
Claims 1, 4, and 8-9 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “each set” in line 5. It should recite “each of the plurality of sets”.
Claim 1 recites “an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus” in line 6. It should recite “the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus”.
Claim 11 recites “receiving a selection of one of the plurality of icons” in lines 1-2. It should recite “receiving the selection of one of the plurality of icons”.
Claim 13 recites “each set” in line 9. It should recite “each of the plurality of sets”.
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 1-14 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 1 recites “each set including a plurality of processes for obtaining an ultrasonic image of at least one diagnosis portion on a display of an ultrasonic diagnosis apparatus” in lines 5-6. It is not clear if the plurality of icons are on a display, the processes are on a display, the ultrasonic image is on the display, or if the at least one diagnosis portion is on a display. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the plurality of icons being displayed on the display.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the at least one selected diagnosis portion" in line 18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites “each set including a plurality of processes for obtaining an ultrasonic image of at least one diagnosis portion on the display” in lines 5-6. It is not clear if the plurality of icons are on a display, the processes are on a display, the ultrasonic image is on the display, or if the at least one diagnosis portion is on a display. Clarification is required. For the purposes of examination, the claim will be interpreted as the plurality of icons being displayed on the display.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the at least one selected diagnosis portion" in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims dependent from the above claims rejected under 35 USC 112(b) are also rejected, as the limitations of the dependent claims fail to cure the deficiencies identified above.
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.
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 1-7, and 9-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta et al. (U.S PGPub 2016/0143620 A1) in view of Halmann (U.S PGPub 2012/0179037 A1), Tashiro (U.S PGPub 2014/0088427 A1), and Lavin et al. (U.S PGPub 2012/0157843 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Ohta teaches a method of controlling an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
displaying a plurality of processes (Fig. 5, 72a-72f) for obtaining an ultrasonic image of at least one diagnosis portion on a display of an ultrasonic apparatus [0056];
displaying the set of the plurality of processes [0056]-[0057]
based on receiving a selection of a process from among the display set of the plurality of processes [0068], displaying, in a first area of the display [0071], an indicator having a shape of a virtual probe at a position on an object image (Fig. 9, the ultrasonic probe is overlaid on an image of the subject) for obtaining the ultrasonic image corresponding to the selected process [0067]-[0068]+[0071];
obtaining the ultrasonic image corresponding to the selected process by using an ultrasonic wave detected by the probe [0043]-[0045]+[0058];
storing the ultrasonic image of the at least one selected diagnosis portion [0045].
Ohta fails to explicitly teach connecting to a probe through a wireless communication network.
Halmann teaches a wireless ultrasound system (Abstract). This system connects probes through a wireless communication network [0021]+[0025].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the probe of Ohta to connect through a wireless communication network, as taught by Halmann, because this increases the number of probes that can be connected to a system, thereby increasing the amount of data a system can obtain at a given time, as recognized by Halmann [0003].
Ohta is silent regarding displaying the obtained ultrasonic image in a second area of the display.
Tashiro teaches an ultrasound examination apparatus (Abstract). This system displays an obtained ultrasound image (Fig. 5, 60) in a second area of a display when the guide is displayed in a first area (Fig. 5, 51) [0066]+[0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to display the ultrasonic image in a second area, as taught by Tashiro, because this allows an unskilled operator to more accurately obtain an ultrasound image, as recognized by Tashiro [0007].
The combination fails to explicitly teach displaying a plurality of icons, each icon corresponding one of the plurality of sets and based on receiving a selection of one of the plurality of icons, displaying the processes.
Lavin teaches a method of selection for an ultrasound imaging process (Abstract). This system displays a plurality of icons (Fig. 2, 225) (Fig. 3, 330+340) [0040] (the icon is the different portions of the body, the sets are associated with the different portions, and when they are selected a list of processes are displayed). The plurality of icons are associated to a plurality of sets made up of a plurality of processes (Fig. 4, 410) [0042]. The system displays the plurality of processes upon selection of the set [0042].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to display icons associated with processes, as taught by Lavin, because this simplifies setting up and performing an ultrasound procedure, as recognized by Lavin [0007].
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches further comprising displaying a thumbnail indicator of the stored ultrasonic image (Fig. 6, 72a) [0059].
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta fails to explicitly teach automatically selecting a next diagnosis portion based on obtaining the ultrasonic image of each of the at least one selected diagnosis portion.
Tashiro further teaches teach automatically selecting a next diagnosis portion based on obtaining the ultrasonic image of each of the at least one selected diagnosis portion [0009]+[0075].
It would have been obvious to of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to automatically select the next diagnosis portion, as taught by Tashiro, because this allows an unskilled operator to more accurately perform an ultrasonic examination, as recognized by Tashiro [0007].
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches wherein the at least one diagnosis portion comprises at least one portion related to a heart (Fig. 5, 72a, pericardial cavity is related to heart) [0055].
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches wherein the at least one diagnosis portion comprises at least one of perihepatic (Fig. 5, 72b), pericardial (Fig. 5, 72a), perisplenic (Fig. 5, 72d), and pelvic portions (Fig. 5, 72f) [0055].
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches wherein the at least one diagnosis portion comprises at least one of an lung (Fig. 5, 72c+72e), cardiovascular (Fig. 5, 72a) [0055].
Regarding Claim 7, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches wherein the at least one of diagnosis portion corresponding to one of the plurality of sets is defined according to a FAST(focused assessment with sonography for trauma) 4Ps (pericardial, perihepatic, perisplenic, and pelvic) reference [0023]-[0024]+[0055].
The combination fails to explicitly teach corresponding to one of the plurality of sets.
Lavin teaches further teaches a plurality of icons are associated to a plurality of sets made up of a plurality of process (Fig. 4, 410) [0042].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute process of Ohta so it is one of the sets, as taught by Lavin, as the substitution for one known set with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable..
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches wherein the displaying the indicator at the position on the object image comprises displaying a direction of the virtual probe for obtaining the ultrasonic image of the at least one selected diagnosis portion corresponding to the selected icon [0067].
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches further comprising providing a guide for the selected process [0012]+[0042]+[0055].
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches based on receiving a selection of one of the plurality of icons [0070], providing a guide information comprising the at least one portion of the object for ultrasonic imaging by using at least one of an image, a sound, or a text [0067]-[0068].
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta further teaches receiving the selection of one of the plurality of icons through a touch screen [0047].
Regarding Claim 13, Ohta teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (Abstract) comprising:
a display (Fig. 2, 30) [0047];
a memory storing program and data (Fig. 2, 44) [0050]; and
a processor (Fig. 2, 46) [0050] configured to the program to cause the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus to:
a plurality of processes (Fig. 5, 72a-72f) for obtaining an ultrasonic image of at least one diagnosis portion on a display of an ultrasonic apparatus [0056];
displaying the set of the plurality of processes corresponding to the selected icon [0056]-[0057]
based on receiving a selection of a process from among the display set of the plurality of processes [0068], display, in a first area of the display [0071], and indicator having a shape of a virtual probe at a position on an object image (Fig. 9, the ultrasonic probe is overlaid on an image of the subject) for obtaining the ultrasonic image corresponding to the selected process [0067]-[0068]+[0071];
obtain the ultrasonic image corresponding to the selected process by using an ultrasonic wave detected by the probe [0043]-[0045]+[0058]; and
store the ultrasonic image of the at least one selected diagnosis portion in the memory [0045].
Ohta fails to explicitly teach a communication module or connecting to a probe through a wireless communication network using the communication module.
Halmann teaches a wireless ultrasound system (Abstract). This system connects probes through a wireless communication network [0021]+[0025] using a communication module (Fig. 1, 110+144) [0024].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the probe of Ohta to connect through a wireless communication network, as taught by Halmann, because this increases the number of probes that can be connected to a system, thereby increasing the amount of data a system can obtain at a given time, as recognized by Halmann [0003].
Ohta is silent regarding displaying the obtained ultrasonic image on a second area of an display of the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus.
Tashiro teaches an ultrasound examination apparatus (Abstract). This system displays an obtained ultrasound image (Fig. 5, 60) in a second area of a display when the guide is displayed in a first area (Fig. 5, 51) [0066]+[0072].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to display the ultrasonic image in a second area, as taught by Tashiro, because this allows an unskilled operator to more accurately obtain an ultrasound image, as recognized by Tashiro [0007].
The combination fails to explicitly teach displaying a plurality of icons, each icon corresponding one of the plurality of sets and based on receiving a selection of one of the plurality of icons, displaying the processes.
Lavin teaches a method of selection for an ultrasound imaging process (Abstract). This system displays a plurality of icons (Fig. 2, 225) (Fig. 3, 330+340) [0040] (the icon is the different portions of the body, the sets are associated with the different portions, and when they are selected a list of processes are displayed). The plurality of icons are associated to a plurality of sets made up of a plurality of process (Fig. 4, 410) [0042]. The system displays the plurality of processes upon selection of the set [0042].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the combined system to display icons associated with processes, as taught by Lavin, because this simplifies setting up and performing an ultrasound procedure, as recognized by Lavin [0007].
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of references teaches a method of controlling an ultrasonic diagnosis apparatus of claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above). Ohta further teaches a non-transitory computer-readable recording medium storing one or more computer programs including at least one computer-readable code that, when executed by one or more processors of an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, cause the one or more processors to perform the method of controlling the ultrasonic diagnosis apparatus [0050].
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohta in view of Halmann, Tashiro, and Lavin as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ha (Ha Young-Rock. "Initial evaluation of a trauma patient using an ultrasound." Journal of the Korean Medical Association 55.11 (2012): 1097-1112.).
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of references teaches the invention substantially as claimed. Ohta fails to explicitly teach wherein the at least one of diagnosis portion corresponding to one of the plurality of sets is defined according to a FAST ABCD (airway, breathing, circulation, and disability) reference.
Ha teaches a ultrasonic examination (Abstract). This examination is a FAST ABCD protocol (Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective art to modify the protocol shown by Ohta to be a FAST-ABCD protocol, as taught by Ha, because this protocol provides critical information for physician decision making, thereby improving the quality of care of the patient, as recognized by Ha (Abstract).
The combination fails to explicitly teach corresponding to one of the plurality of sets.
Lavin teaches further teaches a plurality of icons are associated to a plurality of sets made up of a plurality of process (Fig. 4, 410) [0042].
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute one of the sets of Lavin, with a FAST-ABCD protocol, as taught by Ha, as the substitution for one known set with another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. One of ordinary skill would have been able to carry out such a substitution, and the results are reasonably predictable..
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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. Ohta was not relied on to teach a “plurality of icons”; newly cited Lavin was brought in to teach the limitation.
Applicant continues to argue that Ohta does not teach an indicator on an object image for obtaining the ultrasonic image corresponding to the selected process. The Examiner disagrees. Ohta teaches the help screen shows “the position or posture (direction facing the UT array 20) of the ultrasonic probe” [0067]. The image of the probe is not at an arbitrary position, but rather at a location on the object image for obtaining the desired ultrasound image. Therefore, all the features of claim 1 are taught by the prior art, and the rejection of claim 1 is maintained. For similar reasons, the rejections of claims 2-14 are also maintained.
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 SEAN D MATTSON whose telephone number is (408)918-7613. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM PST.
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/SEAN D MATTSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798