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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 17 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 17 appears to be written in an independent form, yet also refers back to the other independent claim 14. In an interpretation, claim 17 may be construed as an independent claim; and in another interpretation it may also be construed as a dependent claim. In order to prevent any foreseeable ambiguity, it is suggested to bring the entire claim 14 in to the claim 17 to have the claim construed as a proper independent claim; or, correct the dependency of the claim 17 (as shown in other depending claims e.g., claim 16, claim 15, etc.) to have the claim construed as a proper dependent claim.Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites processing the obtained ultrasound imaging data, and updating the value of at least one of the one or more parameters (data manipulation).
The limitation of processing the obtained ultrasound imaging data and updating the value of at least one of the one or more parameters is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components. That is, other than reciting “a plurality of application modules,” nothing in the claim element precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind. For example, but for the “by application modules” language, “processing” in the context of this claim encompasses the user manually processing and/or updating parameters with an undefined value.
Further, (although it is not required) if these processes are performed by an “inherent” processor, these claimed steps could easily be performed by a generic computer component as the claimed limitations do not require any specialized processor. If a Claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites one additional element — using one or more generic processors for execution. The processors are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., a plurality of application modules) such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using processors. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea.
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of using processors to receive ultrasound imaging data, communicating, processing obtained imaging data, receiving input data, and updating the value of at least one of the one or more parameters amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic processors. Mere instructions to apply an exception using generic processors cannot provide an inventive concept. The claim is not patent eligible. The other independent claim 14 also recites similar limitations as claim 1, which is also found to be not patent eligible at least for the reasons noted above.
The dependent claims 2-13 and 15-17 are also directed to an abstract idea as the depending claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The elements in those claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Therefore, the depending claims, are, also not patent eligible.
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:
Claim 1, regarding “application modules each processing the obtained ultrasound imaging data” and “the anatomical feature register to produce output quantification or segmentation data”
Claim 11, regarding “application modules are each adapted to generate a segmentation”
Claim 12, regarding “the plurality of application modules are each adapted to repeatedly or continuously operate on the received image data stream”
Claim 14, regarding “application module being adapted to process ultrasound imaging data” and “the anatomical feature register to produce output quantification or segmentation data”
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.
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 8-10 and 17 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 8 recites the limitation of the “update counter entry associated with at least one of the one or more parameters”. It is unclear what the update counter entry is and how it is associated with each of the parameters as well as the anatomical feature register. Further clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation of “optionally further comprising a user interface”. It is unclear whether the user interface is a required component or if it is optional. For purposes of examination, the limitation will be construed as the user interface not being a necessary component to the claim. However, further clarification is required.
All remaining claims are rejected under the dependency to the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 7, 12-14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schein (US20210100526A1).
Regarding Claim 1,
Schein teaches a computer-implemented method comprising:
receiving ultrasound imaging data of an anatomical structure of a patient obtained from an ultrasound acquisition system (corresponding disclosure in at least [0019], where ultrasound images are received of an anatomical structure “an imaging processing system are shown in FIG. 1. Via the ultrasound probe, ultrasound images may be acquired and displayed on the display device. The displayed images may be annotated with annotations that are generated using a segmentation and tracking model that may identify anatomical features in the ultrasound images and track the location of the identified anatomical features across multiple ultrasound images”);
communicating with an anatomical feature register which stores one or more parameters associated with an anatomical feature of the anatomical structure (corresponding disclosure in at least [0019], where parameters (location) of the anatomical features are determined and stored “FIG. 8 shows the images of FIG. 7 with annotations indicative of the locations of the anatomical features” and further in [0030], where there is a storage medium “ a portion of image processing system 202 is disposed at a separate device (e.g., a workstation) which can receive images/maps from the ultrasound imaging system or from a storage device which stores the images/data generated by the ultrasound imaging system”);
a plurality of application modules each processing the obtained ultrasound imaging data based on a current value of at least one of the one or more parameters associated with an anatomical feature currently stored in the anatomical feature register to produce output quantification or segmentation data (corresponding disclosure in at least [0025], where the multiple modules process the images based on the feature to produce an output quantification, or the coordinates "The modules may include, for example, a scan conversion module to perform scan conversion operations to convert the acquired images from beam space coordinates to display space coordinates”);
and receiving input data from a user interface (corresponding disclosure in at least [0075], where input data is received from a user interface, the input data being the user request “ For example, an operator of the ultrasound system (e.g., a sonographer or other clinician such as an anesthesiologist) may enter an input via a user interface (e.g., user interface 115) or via the probe requesting the subsequent acquired ultrasound images be segmented”);
wherein the method further comprises: updating the value of at least one of the one or more parameters stored in the anatomical feature register based on the input data received from the user interface and/or the output quantification or segmentation data produced by any of the plurality of application modules (corresponding disclosure in at least [0078], where the values of the parameters are updated based on the output quantification, or when the annotation or location is updated based on the output “If the motion tracker detects motion in these images, the first output may be updated based on the detected motion. For example, if the motion tracker determines that the entire field of view of the ultrasound probe has shifted (e.g., due to the operator moving the probe) one mm to the left, the annotations may be shifted one mm to the left. If the motion tracker determines that an identified anatomical feature is moving (e.g., periodic motion due to patient respiration or heartbeat), the annotation for that anatomical feature may be adjusted accordingly (e.g., the annotation may change in size, shape, and/or location)”).
Regarding Claim 7,
Schein further teaches wherein the received ultrasound imaging data comprises: 2D ultrasound imaging data for one or a series of time frames, or 3D ultrasound imaging data for one or a series of time frames (corresponding disclosure in at least [0024], where the acquired data is multiple frames of ultrasound, which is a series of time frames “ A memory 120 is included for storing processed frames of acquired data. In an exemplary embodiment, the memory 120 is of sufficient capacity to store at least several seconds' worth of frames of ultrasound data”).
Regarding Claim 12,
Schein further teaches wherein the received ultrasound image data is an image data stream, and wherein the plurality of application modules are each adapted to repeatedly or continuously operate on the received image data stream (corresponding disclosure in at least [0023], where there is an image data stream (real time) “he processor 116 is adapted to perform one or more processing operations according to a plurality of selectable ultrasound modalities on the data. In one example, the data may be processed in real-time during a scanning session as the echo signals are received by receiver 108 and transmitted to processor” and further in [0023], where there are multiple processors (modules) to operate on the data“ Some embodiments of the invention may include multiple processors (not shown) to handle the processing tasks that are handled by processor 116 according to the exemplary embodiment described hereinabove. For example, a first processor may be utilized to demodulate and decimate the RF signal while a second processor may be used to further process the data, for example by augmenting the data as described further herein, prior to displaying an image” and further in [0090], where there is an example of a continuous operation on the data “If the request to cease segmentation is not received, method 500 proceeds to 522 to continue to display the output of the segmentation and tracking model with acquired ultrasound images on the display device, and provide the output as feedback to the model”)
Regarding Claim 13,
Schein further teaches a computer program product comprising code means configured, when executed by a processor, to perform a method in accordance with Claim 1 (corresponding disclosure in at least [0030], where there is a computer program product “Image processing system 202 includes a processor 204 configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in non-transitory memory 206. Processor 204 may be single core or multi-core, and the programs executed thereon may be configured for parallel or distributed processing”).
Regarding Claim 14,
Schein teaches a processing unit, comprising: an input/output for connection in use with an ultrasound data acquisition apparatus, for receiving ultrasound imaging data of an anatomical structure of a patient (corresponding disclosure in at least [0019], where ultrasound images are received of an anatomical structure “an imaging processing system are shown in FIG. 1. Via the ultrasound probe, ultrasound images may be acquired and displayed on the display device. The displayed images may be annotated with annotations that are generated using a segmentation and tracking model that may identify anatomical features in the ultrasound images and track the location of the identified anatomical features across multiple ultrasound images”);
an anatomical feature register adapted to store one or more parameters associated with an anatomical feature of the anatomical structure (corresponding disclosure in at least [0019], where parameters (location) of the anatomical features are determined and stored “FIG. 8 shows the images of FIG. 7 with annotations indicative of the locations of the anatomical features” and further in [0030], where there is a storage medium “ a portion of image processing system 202 is disposed at a separate device (e.g., a workstation) which can receive images/maps from the ultrasound imaging system or from a storage device which stores the images/data generated by the ultrasound imaging system”);
a control module operatively coupled to the anatomical feature register (corresponding disclosure in at least [0022], where there is a control module, or user interface for controlling the operations “A user interface 115 may be used to control operation of the ultrasound imaging system 100”);
a plurality of application modules operatively coupled to the control module, each application module being adapted to process ultrasound imaging data received at the input/output based on a current value of at least one of the one or more parameters stored in the anatomical feature register to produce output quantification or segmentation data ((corresponding disclosure in at least [0025], where the multiple modules process the images based on the feature to produce an output quantification, or the coordinates "The modules may include, for example, a scan conversion module to perform scan conversion operations to convert the acquired images from beam space coordinates to display space coordinates”); and
wherein the control module is adapted to:
receive user input data from a user interface; and update the value of at least one of the one or more parameters stored in the anatomical feature register based on the user input data provided by the user through the user interface and/or the output quantification or segmentation data produced by any of the plurality of application modules (corresponding disclosure in at least [0078], where the values of the parameters are updated based on the output quantification, or when the annotation or location is updated based on the output “If the motion tracker detects motion in these images, the first output may be updated based on the detected motion. For example, if the motion tracker determines that the entire field of view of the ultrasound probe has shifted (e.g., due to the operator moving the probe) one mm to the left, the annotations may be shifted one mm to the left. If the motion tracker determines that an identified anatomical feature is moving (e.g., periodic motion due to patient respiration or heartbeat), the annotation for that anatomical feature may be adjusted accordingly (e.g., the annotation may change in size, shape, and/or location)”).
Regarding Claim 17,
Schein further teaches the processing unit of claim 14; and an ultrasound data acquisition apparatus operably coupled with the input/output of the processing unit, and optionally further comprising a user interface for obtaining a user input (corresponding disclosure in at least [0023], where there is a processing unit coupled with the ultrasound acquisition apparatus, where there is an input/output of the controlling of the probe and outputting the received ultrasound waves “The ultrasound imaging system 100 also includes a processor 116 to control the transmit beamformer 101, the transmitter 102, the receiver 108, and the receive beamformer 110. The processer 116 is in electronic communication (e.g., communicatively connected) with the probe 106. For purposes of this disclosure, the term “electronic communication” may be defined to include both wired and wireless communications. The processor 116 may control the probe 106 to acquire data according to instructions stored on a memory of the processor, and/or memory 120. The processor 116 controls which of the elements 104 are active and the shape of a beam emitted from the probe 106”).
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.
Claims 2-6 and 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schein (US20210100526A1) in view of Okazaki (US20170249532A1).
Regarding Claim 2, Schein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, and a storage for data ([0030]), but does not teach generating initialization data for at least one of the one or more parameters of the anatomical feature based on the received ultrasound imaging data, and storing the initialization data in the anatomical feature register as an initial value for the at least one of the one or more parameters.
Okazaki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (image processing and updating) of generating initialization data for at least one of the one or more parameters of the anatomical feature based on the received ultrasound imaging data, and storing the initialization data in the anatomical feature register as an initial value for the at least one of the one or more parameters (corresponding disclosure in at least [0076], where initialization data is generated of a parameter, and stored as an initial value “the acquiring function 121 can accepts an operation to specify at least one coordinate value among coordinate values of an apex, a heart valve annulus, an edge line of an inner boundary of a myocardium, and an edge line of an outer boundary of a myocardium, and can acquire an initial value based on the specified coordinate value… further accepts specification of a characteristic part, such as an apex and a heart valve annulus, when accepting an initial value of the outline vector manually from the operator”, where the initial data is generated by a characteristic being selected, the initial data being a parameter of the anatomical feature).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated generating initialization data for the parameter of the anatomical feature and using it as an initial value as taught by Okazaki. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because it is common to have an initial value to provide a known and defined start, avoiding errors.
Regarding Claim 3, Schein and Okazaki teach the limitations of Claim 2, and further teach wherein the method further comprises receiving an exam start indicator signal indicative of a start of an ultrasound examination session, for example from the ultrasound acquisition system (corresponding disclosure in at least [0025] of Schein, where the ultrasound system acquires the images, and the real-time acquired images acts as the signal showing the start of ultrasound examination, or the start of acquiring images “s. A video processor module may be provided that reads the acquired images from a memory and displays an image in real time while a procedure (e.g., ultrasound imaging) is being performed on a patient”), and wherein the generating and storing the initialization data (corresponding disclosure in at least [0076] of Okazaki, where there is initialization data) is performed responsive to receipt of the exam start indicator signal (corresponding disclosure in at least [0023] of Schein, where there is storage of initial data upon the exam starting, “The data may be stored temporarily in a buffer (not shown) during a scanning session and processed in less than real-time in a live or off-line operation”, where when the scan is started, the data is stored, the data including generated initial data).
Regarding Claim 4, Schein and Okazaki teach the limitations of Claim 2, and further teach wherein generating the initialization data for the at least one of the one or more parameters (corresponding disclosure in at least [0076] of Okazaki, where the initialization data and the process of receiving the data is discussed “ the acquiring function 121 can accepts an operation to specify at least one coordinate value among coordinate values of an apex, a heart valve annulus, an edge line of an inner boundary of a myocardium, and an edge line of an outer boundary of a myocardium, and can acquire an initial value based on the specified coordinate value”) comprises applying an artificial intelligence algorithm to the received ultrasound imaging data (corresponding disclosure in at least [0053] of Schein, where network initialization and AI algorithms within ultrasound imaging are used “in batch normalization, the outputs of feature map 312 are normalized across a mini-batch to speed up training of CNNs and reduce the sensitivity to network initialization”).
Regarding Claim 5, Schein and Okazaki teach the limitations of Claim 4, and Schein further teaches wherein the artificial intelligence algorithm is a convolutional neural network (corresponding disclosure in at least [0053], where the algorithm is a CNN “in batch normalization, the outputs of feature map 312 are normalized across a mini-batch to speed up training of CNNs and reduce the sensitivity to network initialization”).
Regarding Claim 6, Schein teaches the limitations of Claim 1, but does not teach wherein the anatomical structure is a cardiac structure, and wherein the one or more parameters include one or more of: a heart size, a left ventricle size, a left atrium size, a right ventricle size, a right atrium size at end diastole, ejection faction and/or a left ventricle length.
Okazaki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (recognition of anatomy in medical images) of wherein the anatomical structure is a cardiac structure, and wherein the one or more parameters include one or more of: a heart size, a left ventricle size, a left atrium size, a right ventricle size, a right atrium size at end diastole, ejection faction and/or a left ventricle length (corresponding disclosure in at least [0023], where the parameter is the left ventricle “the acquiring function 121 sets an initial value of the outline vector of the left ventricle to the two-dimensional ultrasonic image data of the heart of the subject”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the anatomical structure to be a cardiac structure with the parameter being the size of the left ventricle as taught by Okazaki. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because the heart is an anatomical structure, where it is common to focus on specific parameters to assess the condition of the anatomy.
Regarding Claim 15, Schein teaches the limitations of Claim 14 and further teaches a storage for data ([0030]), but does not teach a register initialization module adapted to generate initialization data for at least one of the one or more parameters based on the received ultrasound imaging data, the initialization data comprising an initial value for at least one of the one or more parameters, and wherein the control module is further adapted to trigger the initialization module to generate the initialization data and store the data as an initial value for at least one of the one or more parameters in the anatomical feature register.
Okazaki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (image processing and updating) of a register initialization module adapted to generate initialization data for at least one of the one or more parameters based on the received ultrasound imaging data, the initialization data comprising an initial value for at least one of the one or more parameters, and wherein the control module is further adapted to trigger the initialization module to generate the initialization data and store the data as an initial value for at least one of the one or more parameters in the anatomical feature register (corresponding disclosure in at least [0076], where the data is based on ultrasound imaging “Specifically, when the ultrasonic image data is input, the acquiring function 121 shows a display (message and the like) to prompt the operator to specify (point) a position of at least one point of the apex and the heart valve annulus on the image” and further in [0076] where initialization data is generated of a parameter, and stored as an initial value “the acquiring function 121 can accepts an operation to specify at least one coordinate value among coordinate values of an apex, a heart valve annulus, an edge line of an inner boundary of a myocardium, and an edge line of an outer boundary of a myocardium, and can acquire an initial value based on the specified coordinate value… further accepts specification of a characteristic part, such as an apex and a heart valve annulus, when accepting an initial value of the outline vector manually from the operator”, where the initial data is generated by a characteristic being selected, the initial data being a parameter of the anatomical feature).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated generating initialization data for the parameter of the anatomical feature and using it as an initial value as taught by Okazaki. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because it is common to have an initial value to provide a known and defined start, avoiding errors.
Regarding Claim 16, Schein teaches the limitations of Claim 14, but does not teach wherein the anatomical structure is a cardiac structure, and wherein the one or more parameters include one or more of: a heart size, a left ventricle size, a left atrium size, a right ventricle size, a right atrium size at end diastole, ejection faction and/or a left ventricle length.
Okazaki, in a similar field of endeavor, teaches a similar concept (recognition of anatomy in medical images) of wherein the anatomical structure is a cardiac structure, and wherein the one or more parameters include one or more of: a heart size, a left ventricle size, a left atrium size, a right ventricle size, a right atrium size at end diastole, ejection faction and/or a left ventricle length (corresponding disclosure in at least [0023], where the parameter is the left ventricle “the acquiring function 121 sets an initial value of the outline vector of the left ventricle to the two-dimensional ultrasonic image data of the heart of the subject”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have incorporated the anatomical structure to be a cardiac structure with the parameter being the size of the left ventricle as taught by Okazaki. One of the ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate this because the heart is an anatomical structure, where it is common to focus on specific parameters to assess the condition of the anatomy.
Conclusion
Claims 8-11 are deemed to be free from prior art.
It is also noted that claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Such prior arts include Srinviasan (US20160104292A1) regarding image segmentation and Dufour (US10729410B2) regarding image segmentation in ultrasound.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-1821. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6-2 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, Anne Kozak can be reached at (571) 270-0552. 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.
/K.E.K./Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /SERKAN AKAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights