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 arguments, see pg. 7, filed 26 Feb 2026, with respect to the specification objection have been fully considered and are persuasive. The specification objection of 09 Dec 2025 has been withdrawn in view of the amended abstract.
Applicant’s arguments, see pg. 8, filed 26 Feb 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of 09 Dec 2025 have been withdrawn in view of the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments, see pg. 8-9. filed 26 Feb 2026, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 rejections have been fully considered but they are not persuasive in part.
Applicant argues, see pg. 8, that “the '076 application fails to disclose processing circuitry configured to generate a blood flow image by using the extracted velocity information of the mobile object and the outputted blood probability information, wherein a brightness is determined by using the blood probability information, and a difference in velocity in the velocity information of the mobile object is expressed in terms of a color in the blood flow image, as recited in amended Claim 1 … Regarding the rejection of dependent Claims 6-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant respectfully submits that the '108, '853, and '451 applications fail to remedy the deficiencies of the '076 application, as discussed above.” However, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. A broadest reasonable interpretation of the limitation “determine blood probability information, which includes a probability that the mobile object is a blood flow, by using intensity information” includes any information indicative of a probability that the mobile object is a blood flow, wherein the information is determined by using the intensity information of the mobile object. This still includes Shirai’s comparison result of power P (or intensity) against threshold Pth for blood flow display condition (see [0050]-[0055] of Shirai; see previously provided machine translation of Shirai in the Non-Final Office Action of 09 Dec 2025). While Shirai alone does not disclose at least the processing circuitry configured to generate a blood flow image by using the extracted velocity information of the mobile object and the outputted blood probability information, wherein a brightness is determined by using the blood probability information, and a difference in velocity in the velocity information of the mobile object is expressed in terms of a color in the blood flow image, Shirai, however, discloses at least generating a blood flow image by using the extracted velocity information of the mobile object and the outputted blood probability information (Fig. 5 and [0047]-[0052] of Shirai), wherein a brightness of the blood flow image is determined by using the blood probability information (Fig. 6(B) and [0055]: blood flow of hepatic vein a displayed brighter than noise clutter b) and the velocity information of the mobile object is expressed in terms of a color in the blood flow image (Fig. 6(B) and [0055]: direction of blood flow displayed by color). Fuji, a previously provided prior art, however, discloses a difference in the velocity information of a mobile object being expressed in terms of color in a blood flow image (Fig. 3 and [0047]: “a blue color is applied to a region where the blood flows in a direction away from the ultrasound probe 14, a red color is applied to a region where the blood flows in a direction approaching the ultrasound probe 14”). It is noted that a difference in the velocity information is given a broadest reasonable interpretation to include a difference in direction and/or magnitude in the velocity information, since velocity is well known in the art to be a vector quantity comprising direction and magnitude. See the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection to claim 1 below.
Status of Claims
Claims 1 and 3-10 are currently under examination. Claim 2 has been cancelled since the Non-Final Office Action of 09 Dec 2025.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informality: “determine blood probability information, which includes …” should read “determine a blood probability information, which includes …”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-10 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “determine blood probability information, which includes a probability that the mobile object is a blood flow, by using intensity information, and output the blood probability information”. It is unclear whether “intensity information” recited in the limitation is the same or different from the extracted “intensity information” also recited in the claim. Claims 3-10 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “determine blood probability information, which includes a probability that the mobile object is a blood flow, by using the intensity information, and output the blood probability information”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “wherein a brightness is determined by using the blood probability information”. It is unclear to what “a brightness” is referring. Claims 3-10 inherit the deficiency by the nature of their dependency on claim 1. For purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “wherein a brightness of the blood flow image is determined by using the blood probability information”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai et al. (JP2014008076A, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 11 Jul 2025, a copy of machine translation relied upon previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 09 Dec 2025) – hereinafter referred to as Shirai – in view of Fujii (US PG Pub No. 2025/0127481, priority date of 18 Oct 2023).
Regarding claim 1, Shirai discloses an ultrasound diagnostic device (at least Fig. 4) comprising processing circuitry (Fig. 1: color Doppler processor 15) configured to:
acquire reflection ultrasound data from a mobile object ([0005]-[0007]: color Doppler processor receives received signal of ultrasonic waves reflected inside the human body, including a moving body such as an organ wall, a valve, and a blood flow component; [0036]);
extract velocity information of the mobile object by applying a first filter to the reflection ultrasound data (Fig. 4 and [0040]: post-attenuation correlation calculation unit 153 calculates the velocity V of the blood flow at each point in the human body by performing correlation calculation on the output signal of the MTI filter 152);
extract intensity information of the mobile object by applying a second filter to the reflection ultrasound data (Fig. 4 and [0040]: post-attenuation correlation calculation unit 153 calculates power P representing the blood flow volume given the received signal with the clutter component attenuated by the MTI filter);
determine blood probability information, which includes a probability that the mobile object is a blood flow, by using intensity information (Fig. 4 and [0050]-[0054]: power P (or intensity) is compared against threshold Pth for blood flow display condition, thus the compared power P being a part of the blood probability information) and output probability information (Fig. 4 and [0050]-[0054]: power P (or intensity) is compared against threshold Pth for blood flow display condition, thus the compared power P being a part of the blood probability information); and
generate a blood flow image by using the extracted velocity information of the mobile object and the outputted blood probability information (Fig. 4-5 and [0047]-[0052]: blood flow displayed based on at least the comparisons between power P and Pth and between velocity V and threshold values Vth1 and Vth2; Fig. 6(B) and [0055]-[0056]),
wherein a brightness of the blood flow image is determined by using the blood probability information (Fig. 6(B) and [0055]: blood flow of hepatic vein a displayed brighter than noise clutter b) and the velocity information of the mobile object is expressed in terms of a color in the blood flow image (Fig. 6(B) and [0055]: direction of blood flow displayed by color).
It is noted that a broadest reasonable interpretation has been given to “second filter” to include the same filter as “first filter”, since the claim does not specify whether the two filters are the same or different from each other.
Shirai does not disclose:
wherein a difference in velocity in the velocity information of the mobile object is expressed in terms of a color in the blood flow image.
Fujii in the same field of generating ultrasound based blood flow image, however, teaches:
a difference in the velocity information of a mobile object being expressed in terms of color in a blood flow image (Fig. 3 and [0047]: “a blue color is applied to a region where the blood flows in a direction away from the ultrasound probe 14, a red color is applied to a region where the blood flows in a direction approaching the ultrasound probe 14”).
It is noted that a difference in the velocity information is given a broadest reasonable interpretation to include a difference in direction and/or magnitude in the velocity information, since velocity is well known in the art to be a vector quantity comprising direction and magnitude.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirai’s device to include Fujii’s method of expressing a difference in velocity of a mobile object in a blood flow image in terms of a color. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., assign different colors to the mobile object based on blood flow velocity, as disclosed by Fujii), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shirai and Fujii are directed to generating an ultrasound based blood flow image. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide distinguishing blood flow velocity information to the operator by assigning different colors based on blood flow velocity (Fig. 3 and [0047] of Fujii).
Regarding claim 3, Shirai in view of Fujii discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Shirai further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry (Fig. 4: color Doppler processor 15) is further configured to determine that the higher an intensity indicated by the intensity information is, the higher the blood probability information is ([0050]: blood flow non-display condition is P<Pth, thus P>Pth would display blood flow).
Regarding claim 4, Shirai in view of Fujii discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Shirai further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry (Fig. 4: color Doppler processor 15) is further configured to generate the blood flow image so that the higher the blood probability information is, the higher the brightness is, and the lower the blood probability information is, the lower the brightness is (Fig. 5 and [0046]-[0052]: when blood flow non-display condition is met, display is indexed "0", thus when blood flow non-display condition is not met, blood flow is displayed; Fig. 6(B) and [0055]-[0056]: clutter b is reduced while blood flow of hepatic vein a is shown at a sufficient level for recognition).
Regarding claim 5, Shirai in view of Fujii discloses all limitations of claim 4, as discussed above, and Shirai further discloses:
wherein the processing circuitry (Fig. 4: color Doppler processor 15) is further configured to not express a difference in velocity in the velocity information of the mobile object in terms of a difference in brightness (Shirai does not disclose expressing a difference in velocity in the velocity information of the mobile object in terms of a difference in brightness).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Fujii, as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US PG Pub No. 2012/0078108) – hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 6, Shirai in view of Fujii discloses all limitations of claim 5, as discussed above, and Shirai does not disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate the blood flow image using a color map in which a first axis indicates the probability of being the blood flow and a second axis indicates the velocity of the mobile object.
In the same field of generating ultrasound based blood flow image, however, Kim teaches:
generating a blood flow image using a color map in which a first axis indicates a probability of blood flow and a second axis indicates a velocity of a mobile object (Fig. 5 and [0036]: color Doppler spectrum image PWI formed by mapping the colors corresponding to the color map CM to the Doppler spectrum image by applying colors corresponding to the blood flow velocities (vertical axis or "second axis" of Doppler spectrum image) to pixels of the Doppler spectrum image (horizontal axis or "first axis" indicating blood flow over time of Doppler spectrum image)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirai’s device to include Kim’s method of generating a blood flow image using a color map. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., generate a blood flow image using a color map, as disclosed by Kim), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shirai and Kim are directed to generating an ultrasound based blood flow image. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide distinguishing blood flow velocity information to the operator “by applying colors corresponding to the blood flow velocities to pixels of the Doppler spectrum image”, as taught by Kim ([0036]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Fujii and Kim, as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Goda et al. (JP2022162853A, provided by the Applicant in the IDS of 03 Dec 2024, a copy of machine translation relied upon previously provided in the Non-Final Office Action of 09 Dec 2025) – hereinafter referred to as Goda.
Regarding claim 7, Shirai in view of Fujii and Kim discloses all limitations of claim 6, as discussed above, and Shirai does not disclose:
wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to extract direction information in addition to the velocity information of the mobile object by applying the first filter to the reflection ultrasound data.
In the same field of generating ultrasound based blood flow image, however, Goda teaches:
extracting direction information in addition to a velocity information of a mobile object by applying a first filter to a reflection ultrasound data ([0045]-[0047]: velocity/direction wall filter (WF) function 143 uses a fixed length wall filter for extracting phase change information including blood flow velocity information and direction information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirai’s device to include Goda’s method of extracting velocity and direction information of a mobile object from a reflection ultrasound data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., extract both velocity and direction information from the reflection ultrasound data, as disclosed by Goda), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shirai and Goda are directed to generating an ultrasound based blood flow image. The motivation for the combination would have been to “stably extract changes in blood flow velocity and direction information”, as taught by Goda ([0045]-[0047]).
Regarding claim 8, Shirai in view of Fujii, Kim, and Goda discloses all limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and Shirai does not disclose:
wherein in the color map, a first color is assigned to the mobile object moving in a direction approaching an ultrasound probe, a second color is assigned to the mobile object moving in a direction receding from the ultrasound probe, a third color is assigned to the mobile object of which a velocity of movement is zero, and
a color scheme is adopted such that the first color, the second color, and the third color gradually change based on a probability of being a blood flow and the velocity of the mobile object.
In the same field of generating ultrasound based blood flow image, Fujii further teaches:
in a color map, a first color is assigned to a mobile object moving in a direction approaching an ultrasound probe, a second color is assigned to the mobile object moving in a direction receding from the ultrasound probe, a third color is assigned to the mobile object of which a velocity of movement is zero (Fig. 3: cardiac walls shown in white, and [0047]: red color for where blood flows in a direction approaching the ultrasound probe, blue color for where blood flows in a direction away from the ultrasound probe), and
a color scheme is adopted such that the first color, the second color, and the third color gradually change based on a probability of being a blood flow and the velocity of the mobile object (Fig. 3 and [0047]: brightness is increased in regions where the blood flow velocity is greater).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirai’s device to include Fujii’s method of assigning different colors based on blood flow velocity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., assign different colors to the mobile object based on blood flow velocity, as disclosed by Fujii), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shirai and Fujii are directed to generating an ultrasound based blood flow image. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide distinguishing blood flow velocity information to the operator by assigning different colors based on blood flow velocity (Fig. 3 and [0047] of Fujii).
Regarding claim 9, Shirai in view of Fujii, Kim, and Goda discloses all limitations of claim 7, as discussed above, and Shirai does not disclose:
wherein in the color map, the first color is assigned to the mobile object of which a velocity of movement is zero, the second color is respectively assigned to maximum values on the color map related to the velocity of the mobile object moving in a direction approaching an ultrasound probe and the velocity of the mobile object moving in a direction receding from the ultrasound probe, and
a color scheme is adopted such that a color changes to the second color via the third color as the velocity of the mobile object increases in the direction approaching the ultrasound probe and a color changes to the second color via a fourth color as the velocity of the mobile object increases in the direction receding from the ultrasound probe.
In the same field of generating ultrasound based blood flow image, Fujii further teaches:
in a color map, a first color is assigned to a mobile object of which a velocity of movement is zero, a second color is respectively assigned to maximum values on the color map related to the velocity of the mobile object moving in a direction approaching an ultrasound probe and the velocity of the mobile object moving in a direction receding from the ultrasound probe (Fig. 3: cardiac walls shown in white as “first color”, and [0047]: red color for where blood flows in a direction approaching the ultrasound probe, blue color for where blood flows in a direction away from the ultrasound probe, and brightness is increased in regions where the blood flow velocity is greater, thus red and blue (non-white colors) as “second color”), and
a color scheme is adopted such that a color changes to the second color via the third color as the velocity of the mobile object increases in the direction approaching the ultrasound probe and a color changes to the second color via a fourth color as the velocity of the mobile object increases in the direction receding from the ultrasound probe ([0047]: red color for where blood flows in a direction approaching the ultrasound probe, blue color for where blood flows in a direction away from the ultrasound probe, and brightness is increased in regions where the blood flow velocity is greater, thus third and fourth colors are red and blue colors, respectively, in different brightnesses).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirai’s device to include Fujii’s method of assigning different colors based on blood flow velocity. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., assign different colors to the mobile object based on blood flow velocity, as disclosed by Fujii), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shirai and Fujii are directed to generating an ultrasound based blood flow image. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide distinguishing blood flow velocity information to the operator by assigning different colors based on blood flow velocity (Fig. 3 and [0047] of Fujii).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai in view of Fujii, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goda.
Regarding claim 10, Shirai in view of Fujii discloses all limitations of claim 2, as discussed above, and Shirai does not disclose:
wherein the first filter is a fixed-length wall filter in a Doppler frequency space, and the second filter is an eigenvalue expansion-type wall filter.
In the same field of generating ultrasound based blood flow image, however, Goda teaches:
applying a first filter that is a fixed-length wall filter in a Doppler frequency space ([0045]-[0047]: velocity/direction wall filter (WF) function 143 uses a fixed length wall filter for extracting phase change information including blood flow velocity information and direction information) and a second filter that is an eigenvalue expansion-type wall filter to a reflection ultrasound data ([0041]-[0043]: power WF function 141 uses an eigenvalue expansion type wall filter for extracting power (intensity) information about blood flow).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shirai’s device to include Goda’s method of applying a fixed-length wall filter and an eigenvalue expansion-type wall filter. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., apply wall filters to the reflection ultrasound data, as disclosed by Goda), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Shirai and Goda are directed to generating an ultrasound based blood flow image. The motivation for the combination would have been to “suppress[es] the Doppler shift spatially similar to the main component as the clutter component. Such an eigenvalue expansion type wall filter is excellent in clutter suppression ability and extraction of power components of blood flow … suppress[es] a component with a low Doppler shift frequency as clutter. The Doppler shift frequency is lower in reflected ultrasound data from stationary or slow-moving tissue … (and) stably extract changes in blood flow velocity and direction information”, as taught by Goda ([0043]-[0047]).
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 Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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.
/Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797
/ANH TUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 04/04/26
Prosecution Insights