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
With respect to claims 1 and 10, the amendment recites calculating the “overall evaluation value based on a plurality of individual evaluation values”, where the individual evaluation value is lower than the overall evaluation value and notifying the user of the “image quality parameter for increasing the individual evaluation value”. It is not clear from the claim language why the “individual evaluation value” would be increased relative to the “overall evaluation value”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim language states that the “individual evaluation value” is lower than the “overall evaluation value” and notifying the user of the image quality parameter to increase the “individual evaluation value”. The claim amendments do not clarify the relationship between the “individual evaluation value” and the threshold value where if the “individual evaluation value” is equal to or less than the threshold value, the notification is sent to change direction of the “image quality parameter” for increasing the “evaluation value” and the “overall evaluation value” (claims 2 and 3). With respect to claim 10, the claim amendments additionally do not clarify specific parameter that is being considered in determining the “image quality parameter”, and “evaluation item”. Claim 1, lines 15-19 lists the different “evaluation items” and “image quality parameters”.
Therefore, with respect to claims 1 and 9, it is not clear the relationship between the “individual evaluation value, the “threshold value”, “image quality parameter”, and the increasing the “overall evaluation value”. For these reasons, the 112(b) rejection of claims 1 and 10 is maintained with suggestion to incorporate subject matter from claims 2 and 3 and into claims 1 and 10.
In view of the amendments, the 103 Rejection is withdrawn.
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, 2, and 4-13 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.
With respect to claims 1 and 10, the amendment recites calculating the “overall evaluation value based on a plurality of individual evaluation values”, where the individual evaluation value is lower than the overall evaluation value and notifying the user of the “image quality parameter for increasing the individual evaluation value”. It is not clear from the claim language why the “individual evaluation value” would be increased relative to the “overall evaluation value”. The claim amendments do not specify the relationship between the “individual evaluation value” and the threshold value where if the “individual evaluation value” is equal to or less than the threshold value, the notification is sent to change direction of the “image quality parameter” for increasing the “evaluation value” and the “overall evaluation value” (combination of claims 2 and 3). With respect to claim 9, the claim amendments additionally do not clarify specific parameter and evaluation item that is being considered in determining the “image quality parameter”, and “evaluation item”. Claim 1, lines 15-19 lists the different “evaluation items” and “image quality parameters”.
Therefore, with respect to claims 1 and 10, it is not clear the relationship between the “individual evaluation value, the “threshold value”, “image quality parameter”, and the increasing the “overall evaluation value”. It is suggested to incorporate subject matter from claims 2 and 3 and into claims 1 and 10 to clarify the relationship between the “evaluation value” and the threshold value to notify the user of the changing direction of the “image quality parameter” and then increase the “individual evaluation value” and the “overall evaluation value” .
Claims 2, and 4-13 do not provide additional clarity with respect to this subject matter and therefore stand rejected under 112(b).
Claim Objections
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Other related prior art:
Maruyama et al. (2024/0046423):
Directed to ultrasound based image processing that includes an evaluation value computing unit configured to fin a noise evaluation value for the reception signal, perform noise reducing process on the reception signal based on the noise evaluation value and generate image data based on the noise reducing process.
Torii (2020/0411165):
Directed to ultrasound diagnostic apparatus to generate ultrasound image data and generate an evaluation result and a combiner that selects ultrasound image data according to the generated evaluation result and combines the ultrasound image data to generate panoramic image data (abstract) and comparing the evaluation result to the threshold value. “When the evaluation result is consecutively lower than the threshold value (step S54; YES), the hardware processor 18 causes the image processor 15 to generate panoramic image data formed by halfway frames obtained by combining the ultrasound image data acquired in steps S11 and S12, which is stored in the image memory 15a, using the vertical movement amount, the horizontal movement amount, and the rotation amount of each frame calculated in step S52, and stores the panoramic image data in the panoramic image memory 15b (step S58). It is assumed that the ultrasound image data used for combination does not include a frame whose evaluation result is consecutively smaller than the threshold value”. [0089].
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights