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
Claims 3 and 7 are cancelled, and claims 1, 4-5, and 8-9 remain pending in the application in response to the applicant’s amendments to the rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 05/18/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 07/27/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Given the amendments to claim 1, reference to Sugiyama is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 4-5 and 8 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
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 1, 4-5, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon et al. (US 10702248 B2, published July7, 2020) in view of Han (KR 20150132920 A, published November27, 2015), Hahn (US 20250029509A1, published January 23, 2025 with apriority date of July 20, 2023), and Sugiyama et al. (US 20210315545 A1, published October 14, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Vignon, Han, Hahn, and Sugiyama, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, and similarly for claim 9, Vignon teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus (Fig. 1, apparatus 100) comprising:
an ultrasound probe (Fig. 1, imaging probe 144); and
a processor (Fig. 1, includes controller 104) configured to:
detect a position and a posture angle of the ultrasound probe (see col. 4, lines 48-53 "Images to be incorporated into the state space are labeled with attributes such as viewed image anatomy, image quality, and corresponding probe position and orientation [position and posture angle of probe] on the superficial anatomy.");
acquire an ultrasound image of an inside of a subject by transmitting and receiving an ultrasound beam by using the ultrasound probe (see col. 4, lines 60-63 "The images to be acquired for incorporation into the state space are specialized for a specific body organ, or vessel, such that the organ or vessel, and/or surrounding tissue, are depicted in each image." where transmitting and receiving ultrasound waves via an ultrasound probe in order to generate an ultrasound image is inherent and known in the art);
recognize a predetermined recommended cross section for a part of the subject by performing image analysis on the ultrasound image (see col. 7, lines 1-5 "The registration in step S240 involves image based pattern matching [image analysis] of the current view 502 to the 3D reference image and a coordinate transformation on the current view to bring it into registration with the 3D image in accordance with the matching.”); and
determine, as that an examination is inappropriate, that the recommended cross section is not recognized in a predetermined positional/angular range including a recommended position and a recommended posture angle of the ultrasound probe corresponding to the recommended cross section with reference to the detected position and the detected posture angle of the ultrasound probe (see col. 4, lines 1-6 "If it is now determined that the current view does not match, or sufficiently represent, the target view (step S244), the apparatus 100 gives user feedback [position and posture angle of probe] that instructs, or shows, how to proceed toward the goal of achieving the target view (step S248), and processing branches back to the user positioning step S228.").
Vignon teaches adjusting the ultrasound probe upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, but does not explicitly teach upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate from among a plurality of causes.
Whereas, Han, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate from among a plurality of causes by performing image analysis on the image (see pg. 30, para. 3 "The control unit 180 may control the display unit 151 to analyze the image quality of the image 510 and output a guidance message to guide the cause of deterioration of the image quality of the image 510. [ For example, based on the image quality analysis result of the image 510, the control unit 180 determines whether the cause of image deterioration is low light, whether the subject is camera shake, backlight, setting conditions of parameters of the camera 121"); and
instruct a user to change at least one of the plurality of causes (see pg. 30, para. 5 "In some cases, the guidance message 530 may include information for inducing user's actions necessary to improve image deterioration of an image at the time of re-photographing the image.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified adjusting the ultrasound probe upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, as disclosed in Vignon, by, upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate from among a plurality of causes, as disclosed in Han. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the user to more specifically recognize the cause of deterioration in image quality beyond the deterioration of the image quality of the photographed image, and can search for a solution capable of improving the image quality, as taught in Han (see pg. 30, para. 6).
Vignon in view of Han teaches upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate, but does not explicitly teach the causes include a breathing state of the subject, a pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, and a posture of the subject.
Whereas, Hahn, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches the causes include a breathing state of the subject, a pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, and a posture of the subject (see para. 0032 "The instructions determined according to method 100 may further include a position [posture] guidance for the subject... In case of an ultrasound imaging exam, this may involve instructions on holding the ultrasound probe, placing the ultrasound probe, breathing instructions [breathing state], pressure applied [pressing amount] by the ultrasound probe on the subject's surface, etc.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified upon determining that the examination is inappropriate, specify a cause of the examination being appropriate, as disclosed in Vignon in view of Han, by having the causes include a breathing state of the subject, a pressing amount of the ultrasound probe against the subject, and a posture of the subject, as disclosed in Hahn. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further improve image quality, as taught in Hahn (see para. 0009).
Vignon in view of Han and Hahn teaches determining that the examination is inappropriate based on a specified cause of breathing state of the subject, a pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, or a posture of the subject, but does not explicitly teach calculating an indicator related to the specified cause, determining an appropriateness degree of the indicator, and instructing a user to change the specified cause based on the indicator and the appropriateness degree.
Whereas, Sugiyama, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches
upon determining that the examination is inappropriate,
calculate an indicator related to the specified cause, the indicator including at least one of a current level of the breathing state, a current level of the pressing amount, or a current posture of the subject (Fig. 4, current pressure image 54C as an indicator),
determine an appropriateness degree of the indicator (see para. 0061 – “In the example shown in FIG. 4, the current pressure image 54C [indicator] is displayed on the +Y side further than the target pressure image 54B in the pressure indicator 54. The pressure indicator 54 indicates that a pressing pressure is less than [appropriateness degree] a target pressure.”), and
instruct a user to change at least one of the breathing state of the subject, the pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, or the current posture of the subject based on the indicator and the appropriateness degree (Fig. 4; see para. 0061 – “In the example shown in FIG. 4, the current pressure image 54C [indicator] is displayed on the +Y side further than the target pressure image 54B in the pressure indicator 54. The pressure indicator 54 indicates that a pressing pressure is less than [appropriateness degree] a target pressure. Accordingly, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 presents an operation of increasing (pressing) the pressing pressure to the operator.”; see para. 0062 – “The pressing instruction image 54E is information representing a state in which the ultrasonic probe 10 is operated...As the pressing direction image 54D, characters such as “MORE PRESSURE” and “APPLY MORE PRESSURE” instead of “PRESS!” may be displayed.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified determining that the examination is inappropriate based on a specified cause of breathing state of the subject, a pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, or a posture of the subject, as disclosed in Vignon in view of Han and Hahn, by calculating an indicator related to the specified cause, determining an appropriateness degree of the indicator, and instructing a user to change the specified cause based on the indicator and the appropriateness degree, as disclosed in Sugiyama. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order for the user to perform the change to an appropriate examination with higher precision and accuracy.
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Sugiyama further teaches wherein the processor is configured to instruct the user on at least one of an amount of change in the level of the breathing state, an amount of change in the level of the pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, or a target posture of the subject, which is required to determine that the examination is appropriate, based on the indicator and the appropriateness degree (Fig. 4, instruct an amount of change in the level of the pressing amount of the ultrasound probe user from current pressure image 54C [indicator] to target pressure image 54B via pressing direction image 54D and pressing instruction image 54E [user instructions]; see para. 0061 – “In the example shown in FIG. 4, the current pressure image 54C [indicator] is displayed on the +Y side further than the target pressure image 54B in the pressure indicator 54. The pressure indicator 54 indicates that a pressing pressure is less than [appropriateness degree] a target pressure. Accordingly, the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus 100 presents an operation of increasing (pressing) the pressing pressure to the operator.”).
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 8, Sugiyama further teaches wherein the processor is configured to instruct the user to change the breathing state of the subject, the pressing amount of the ultrasound probe against the subject, or the current posture of the subject at an indicator position and an indicator posture angle of the ultrasound probe for imaging an indicator cross section different from the recommended cross section (Fig. 4; see para. 0053 – “For example, the generation function 124 sets a target position, a target speed, and a target pressure [to a recommended cross section] with respect a state of the ultrasonic probe 10, such as a position [indicator position and an indicator posture angle of the ultrasound probe], a speed, and a pressing pressure, on the basis of the existing data.”).
The motivation for claims 4-5 and 8 was shown previously in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Elevelt et al. (US 20210298719 A1, published September 30, 2021) discloses positioning the ultrasound probe at the target position, and adapting a pressing force amount of a mechanical pressing force exerted on the object in response to a variation of a counterforce amount so as to maintain a predetermined net pressing force amount exerted by the mechanical pressing force against the counterforce.
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 Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights