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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species I (figs. 1 - 8 and 13) in the reply filed on 3/3/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant’s Remarks filed on 3/3/2026 state that claims 1 - 8 and 15 - 18 read upon the elected species. Examiner cannot fully agree, as claims 16 and 18 are directed towards non-elected species 2. Claims 9 - 14, 16 and 18 are therefore withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 3/3/2026. Claims 1 - 8, 15, and 17 are examined herein.
Drawings
Figure 16 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 - 8, 15, 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.
Claims 1 , 15, and 17 are indefinite for the following reasons:
It is unclear what is meant by “a gradient of a surface of the observation target” (3rd paragraph). The specification explains that the “observation target … is a blood flowing through a blood vessel” ([0059], as published). It is unclear how a gradient of a surface of “a blood flowing through a blood vessel” may be calculated, as neither blood, nor a surface thereof, is understood in the art as having a “gradient”.
It is unclear what ‘use’ is intended by “using a first element included in the Doppler data” (3rd paragraph). It is unclear how the “first element” may be used to calculate the “gradient of a surface of the observation target”.
It is unclear what is meant by generation of a second rendering “considering shading”. It is unclear how such a step (i.e., generation of a rendering) is capable of “considering shading”.
It is altogether unclear what the processing circuitry of claims 1 and 15 is configured to do; and similarly unclear what the algorithm implemented by claim 17 is. Those of ordinary skill in the art would not understand the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Claims 2 - 8 are indefinite by virtue of dependency.
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 - 8, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a mathematical calculation and/or mental step) without significantly more.
Independent claims 1 and 15:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., an apparatus.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites “calculate a gradient of a surface of the observation target using a first element included in the Doppler data”, which is a mathematical calculation. Alternatively, the limitation amounts to nothing more than a step that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the limitation recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element of ‘acquiring three-dimensional Doppler data of an observation target’, which is pre-solution activity, and reads on simply opening a file. The claim also recites that processing circuitry performs the judicial exception, which is merely an instruction to implement a judicial exception on a computer. The claim also recites limitations directed towards generating first and second renderings, which is extra-solution activity. Alternatively, the limitations read on a mental step because a human can ‘generate renderings’ as recited mentally and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations are directed towards extra-solution activity, an instruction to implement a judicial exception on a computer, and/or a mental step. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Independent claim 17:
With regard to Step 1, the claim is directed to one of the four statutory categories of invention, i.e., a method.
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 1, the claim recites “calculating a gradient of a surface of the observation target using a first element included in the Doppler data”, which is a mathematical calculation. Alternatively, the limitation amounts to nothing more than a step that can practically be performed in the human mind and/or with the aid of pen/paper. Therefore, the limitation recites an abstract idea. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2).
With regard to Step 2A: Prong 2, the claim recites an additional element of ‘acquiring three-dimensional Doppler data of an observation target’, which is pre-solution activity, and reads on simply opening a file. The claim also recites limitations directed towards generating first and second renderings, which is extra-solution activity. Alternatively, the limitations read on a mental step because a human can ‘generate renderings’ as recited, either mentally and/or with the aid of pen/paper (i.e., sketching the first and second rendering images). Therefore, the recited additional elements do not, either individually or as a whole, integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to Step 2B, as explained above, the additional limitations are directed towards extra-solution activity and/or a mental step. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations do not result in the claim, as a whole, amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Dependent claims 2 - 3 recite additional limitations directed towards details of the renderings, which merely modifies extra-solution activity. Alternatively, the generation of the shading is directed to mathematical calculations, as discussed in [006] of the published specification, and thus to a judicial exception. Dependent claims 4 - 7 recite additional limitations that specify what the first and second elements are, which merely limit the judicial exception to a particular field of use. Dependent claim 8 recites additional limitations directed towards a user interface and details of the renderings, which merely sets forth and/or modifies extra-solution activity. Therefore, when considered separately and in combination, the additional limitations of the dependent claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, or result in the claims amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AMELIE R DAVIS whose telephone number is (571)270-7240. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:30 - 6:00 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.
/AMELIE R DAVIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights