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 Amendment
The claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been withdrawn in light of the amendment to the claims filed on 6 January 2026.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of the amendment filed on 6 January 2026.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 objected to because of the following informalities: the amended claim now recites “wherein, in the support information database, the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level and an operation mode of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus”; however, Claim 4-5 & 7-8 recite “a combination of the examiner level, match rate, and…” corresponding species. It appears that Applicant may have forgotten to include the combination include a match rate, especially considering the subsequent phrase of Claim 6 claims outputting the combination of “the examiner level, match rate, and…” corresponding species. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 & 4-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US PGPUB 20220087644, see IDS of 12 June 2025; hereinafter "Patil").
With regards to Claim 1, an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (ultrasound imaging system 100 with processor 116; see Patil FIG. 1 & ¶ [0033]) comprising:
a processor (processor 116; see Patil FIG. 1) configured to:
specify an examiner level indicating a level of proficiency in operation of an examiner for the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus, based on an examiner database in which an examiner ID for uniquely identifying the examiner and the examiner level of the examiner are associated with each other (accessing operator’s last save proficiency score {i.e. examiner level} from proficiency database 132 {i.e. examiner database} after operator logs into ultrasound system; see Patil ¶ [0071 & 0073])(claimed in the alternative); and
specify a targeted cross-section which is a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed (scan plane accuracy is assessed based on a comparison of the images being acquired with one or more reference images based on whether a desired/target cross-sectional view is achieved; see Patil ¶ [0043]);
execute cross-section recognition processing on a target image which is an ultrasound tomographic image formed in response to an instruction from the examiner, to calculate a match rate between a cross-section classification of the target image and the targeted cross-section (scan plane accuracy user score is assigned a level score {i.e. match rate} based on a given proficiency according to a parameter, e.g. scan plane accuracy; see Patil ¶ [0053]); and
output, based on a support information database in which support information related to an operation of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus and used to support formation of an ultrasound tomographic image by the examiner is associated with a combination of each examiner level and each match rate (generate user guidance based on a rules-based expert system, in which different forms of user guidance (e.g., contextual guidance and/or real-time guidance cues) are generated as appropriate for the operator based the application of one or more rules within a decision tree structure {i.e. support information database}; see Patil ¶ [0074] & FIGS. 2A-2C for support information rubric), support information with a content tailed to the examiner level and to the match rate (generated a graphical interface of user guidance based on a user proficiency score relative to a corresponding threshold, e.g. novice, intermediate, advanced; see Patil ¶ [0074-0075]),
wherein in response to the examiner level being in a first level and the match rate being in a first rate, the processor outputs first support information with a content tailored to the first level and to the first rate (as illustrated in FIG. 2B of Patil, when the scan plan accuracy score changes and meets a different threshold {e.g. level 1} the corresponding overall proficiency score is change and therefore the corresponding type, style, and/or amount of automated guidance may be adjusted based on the operator's proficiency scores; see Patil ¶ [0067]), and
wherein in response to the examiner level being in the first level and the match rate being in a second rate different from the first rate, the processor outputs second support information with a content tailored to the first level and to the second rate (as illustrated in FIG. 2B of Patil, when the scan plan accuracy score changes and meets a different threshold {e.g. level 2} the corresponding overall proficiency score is change and therefore the corresponding type, style, and/or amount of automated guidance may be adjusted based on the operator's proficiency scores; see Patil ¶ [0067]).
With regards to Claim 41, Patil discloses wherein, in the support information database, the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level, the match rate (see Claim 1 analysis for combination of examiner level & match rate), and a display aspect of a target image which is an ultrasound tomographic image formed in response to an instruction from the examiner (the guidance based on overall proficiency score {which is also based on scan plane accuracy user score, i.e. combination of examiner level & match rate} is provided in real-time; see Patil ¶ [0069]; it should be appreciated that real-time guidance is automatically adjusted based on the overall proficiency scores amounts to the support information being associated with the display aspect because the guidance {e.g. cues for probe placement and/or orientation (e.g., graphical display elements such as arrows, lines, indicators, etc.), textual instructions, prompts or check-lists of protocol steps, and so forth} are dynamically generated by based on user proficiency during the real-time procedure; see Patil ¶ [0067 & 0069]), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the examiner level of the examiner, to the match rate, and to the display aspect of the target image (the corresponding guidance is provided in real-time, i.e. displayed as an output to the user; see Patil ¶ [0069]).
With regards to Claim 51, Patil discloses wherein,
in the support information database, the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level, to the match rate (see Claim 1 analysis for combination of examiner level & match rate), and a measurement content using a target image which is an ultrasound tomographic image formed in response to an instruction from the examiner (quantitative criteria for image quality may include, for example, how many nodules, tumor sites, etc. have been captured out of a total number of nodules, tumor sites, etc., or how many features of an anatomical structure are captured, i.e. measurement content; see Patil ¶ [0055]), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the examiner level of the examiner, to the match rate, and to the measurement content (the corresponding guidance is provided in real-time, i.e. displayed as an output to the user; see Patil ¶ [0069]).
With regards to Claim 61, Patil discloses wherein,
in the support information database, the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level and an operation mode of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (wherein the user proficiency score is based on acquisition speed; see Patil ¶ [0055]; it should be appreciated that “operation mode” is defined by an open-ended list of possibilities thus it is interpreted by its plain an ordinary meaning which is met by acquisition speed; Patil also teaches that the acquisition time thresholds are determined by based on type of ultrasound acquisition which one of ordinary skill in the art may interpret as operation mode; see ¶ [0092]), and
the output unit outputs support information with a content tailored to the examiner level of the examiner, match rate, and to the operation mode of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (the corresponding guidance is provided in real-time, i.e. displayed as an output to the user; see Patil ¶ [0069]).
With regards to Claim 71, Patil discloses wherein,
in the support information database, the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level, the match rate (see Claim 1 analysis for combination of examiner level & match rate), and an attribute of a subject (the proficiency score is associated with the user’s login credential, i.e. attribute of a subject; see Patil ¶ [0071]; since the proficiency score is associated with login credentials, the guidance is tailored to the user that is currently logged into the system; it should be appreciated that “attribute of a subject” is defined by an open-ended list of possibilities thus it is interpreted by its plain an ordinary meaning which is met by login credentials), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the examiner level of the examiner, to the match rate, and to the attribute of the subject (the corresponding guidance is provided in real-time, i.e. displayed as an output to the user; see Patil ¶ [0069]).
With regards to Claim 81, Patil discloses wherein,
in the support information database, the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level, the match rate (see Claim 1 analysis for combination of examiner level & match rate), a first cross-section classification, and a second cross-section classification other than the first cross-section classification (a user may encounter difficulty distinguishing the target scan plane from the one or more adjacent scan planes {i.e. first/second cross-sections}; see Patil ¶ [0115]; it should be appreciated the guidance is adjusted according to the identified adjacent scan planes {i.e. first cross-section classification} to guide the user to adjust the probe position to achieve the target scan plane {i.e. second cross-section classification}), and
the processor outputs support information with a content tailored to the examiner level of the examiner, to the match rate, to a cross-section classification of a target image, which is an ultrasound tomographic image formed in response to an instruction from the examiner, as the first cross-section classification, and to a targeted cross-section, which is a cross-section classification of an ultrasound tomographic image that needs to be formed, as the second cross-section classification (the corresponding guidance is provided in real-time, i.e. displayed as an output to the user; see Patil ¶ [0069]).
With regards to Claim 91, Patil discloses wherein the processor is further configured to edit the support information in response to an instruction from a user of the ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (prompting the user to exit the current pre-set; see Patil ¶ [0078]; it should be appreciated that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that exiting the current preset amounts to a user input/instruction which leads to the update of the proficiency score based on the current pre-set procedure; see Patil ¶ [0082]; updating the proficiency score with the current pre-set score broadly amounts to editing the proficiency score, i.e. editing the support information, based on the user input to exit the current pre-set).
With regards to Claim 101, Patil discloses
wherein the processor calculates the match rate for the same targeted cross-section again after the support information has been output, and assigns, in a case where the match rate after the support information has been output is higher than the match rate before the support information is output, a priority flag to the support information in the support information database (each level is associated with a level score which affects the corresponding user score {i.e. priority flag} for said proficiency parameter which, in turn, affects the overall score; see Patil ¶ [0065]; the operator's proficiency score on a pre-set {i.e. performing the same imaging procedure, e.g. same targeted cross-section again} may increase as the proficiency parameter of practice hours increases, or the operator's proficiency score on the pre-set may increase as a result of achieving a higher proficiency score than the operator's previous proficiency scores for the proficiency parameter of acquisition speed (e.g., representing faster acquisition speed), or another proficiency parameter; see Patil ¶ [0073]), 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 examiner level in the support information database, over support information with no priority flag assigned (the updated proficiency score based on the updated user score {i.e. flag} associated with each proficiency parameter and, thus, the user guidance is updated based on the new proficiency score, i.e. preferentially outputs support information associated with priority flag according to examiner level).
With regards to Claim 111, Patil 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 and stores the match rate in a memory (an operator's overall experience in performing ultrasound examinations across all available pre-sets may be measured by assigning an overall proficiency score to the operator, where the overall proficiency score may be a function of the operator's pre-set proficiency scores on each of the plurality of pre-set charts 200; see Patil ¶ [0067]; different pre-sets are associated with different target scan planes {i.e. different targeted cross-sections} and the user proficiency score is determined based on all of the different pre-set proficiencies), and
the processor outputs the calculated match rate for a completed examination process during the examination along the plurality of examination processes (an operator's overall experience in performing ultrasound examinations across all available pre-sets may be measured by assigning an overall proficiency score to the operator, where the overall proficiency score may be a function of the operator's pre-set proficiency scores on each of the plurality of pre-set charts 200; see Patil ¶ [0067]; different pre-sets are associated with different target scan planes {i.e. different targeted cross-sections} and the user proficiency score is determined based on all of the different pre-set proficiencies {i.e. completed examination process of a plurality of examination processes}).
With regards to Claim 121, Patil discloses wherein
the processor outputs, after a plurality of examination processes, each forming an ultrasound tomographic image of a different targeted cross-section, have ended, an examination report that includes, 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, the examination report associating information on the item tailored to the examiner level of the examiner with each targeted cross-section (an operator's overall experience in performing ultrasound examinations across all available pre-sets may be measured by assigning an overall proficiency score to the operator, where the overall proficiency score may be a function of the operator's pre-set proficiency scores on each of the plurality of pre-set charts 200; see Patil ¶ [0067]; overall proficiency score amounts to examination report that includes a plurality of items of support information).
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil.
With regards to Claim 31, Patil discloses wherein a numerical range in which the match rate is capable of being taken is divided into a plurality of match rate levels by one or a plurality of division threshold values, and the support information is associated with a combination of the examiner level and the match rate level in the support information database (scan plane accuracy user score 210 is divided into a plurality of levels, e.g. 1-5; see Patil ¶ [0067]; it should be appreciated that the mere definition of levels meets the limitation of threshold because a quantifiable/qualifiable differentiation between the various levels; see Patil ¶ [0053 & 0055]), and
It appears that Patil may be silent to the division threshold value is changed according to the examiner level of the examiner. However, Patil teaches of one or more level scores and that that levels 1-5 are only examples. Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Patil to provide at least the struck through limitation. Doing so would amount to routine optimization such that the number of levels are assigned based on the granularity of the desired level score quantization/qualification (see Patil ¶ [0053 & 0055]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In particular, Applicant contends that Patil does not anticipate the recently amended Claim 1. In support, Applicant argues that “the scan plane accuracy in Patil functions merely as one factor for assessing a particular aspect of be operator's proficiency.” The Office disagrees. Patil’s method as cited provides real-time guidance {i.e. support information} tailored based on the user’s proficiency score {i.e. examiner level} which reflects an overall proficiency based on individual user scores as illustrated in previously cited FIG. 2B. Patil discloses that the proficiency score is determined based on, among other scores, a scan plane accuracy user score {i.e. match rate}. The scan plane accuracy user score is, in turn, based on a comparison {i.e. cross-section classification} of a reference cross-section image {i.e. targeted cross-section} and the current cross-sectional view {target view} (as previously cited in Patil ¶ [0043]). Moreover, the real-time automated guidance is tailored based on a threshold according proficiency level along with a corresponding proficiency score (see Patil ¶ [0097]). Accordingly, Patil’s real-time guidance {i.e. support information} is based on a combination of the proficiency score {i.e. examiner level} and scan plane accuracy user score {i.e. match rate} “such that the type, style, and/or amount of automated guidance may be adjusted based on the operator's proficiency scores” (as disclosed by Patil in previously cited ¶ [0067]). Therefore, Applicant’s argument that “the '"match rate" in the claimed invention is fundamentally distinct from Patil' s scan plane accuracy parameter, which merely contributes to a proficiency score and does not control conditional output of support. information based on a combination of an examiner level and a match rate“ is not persuasive because, as detailed directly above, Patil’s scan plane accuracy score does contribute the user’s overall proficiency score.
It should be appreciated that according to FIG. 3 of the instant specification, examiner level is based on the match rate; therefore, the claimed combination of examiner level and match rate is not a direct combination but, rather, an indirect combination. Similarly, display aspect of the target image, measurement content, operation mode, and subject attribute all contribute an indirect combination as well.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHISH S. JASANI whose telephone number is (571)272-6402. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 am - 4:00 pm (CST).
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 M. Raymond can be reached on (571) 270-1790. 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.
/ASHISH S. JASANI/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH M RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798