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 2 and 6 are cancelled, and claims 1, 3-5, and 7-9 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 01/09/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 02/23/2026 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 Hahn is being relied upon to teach dependent claims 3-5 and 7-8 more-consistently with the instant claim language, as shown below.
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, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 and 9 are claims that recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “detect a position and posture angle of ultrasound probe”, “acquire and ultrasound image…”, “recognize…”, “determine…”, “…specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate…”, “instruct a user to change…” steps does not specify how to detect a position and angle of the probe, acquire the image, recognize a recommended cross section, determine the recommended cross section is not recognized, specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate, and instruct a user to change at least one of the specified causes. The physician can view the position and angle of the probe, print and view an ultrasound image, recognize the recommended cross section, determine the recommended cross section is not recognized, specify a cause of the examination being inappropriate, and change at least one of the specified causes using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
General system elements (i.e., ultrasound probe, processor) related to the insignificant extra solution activity steps that do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 3 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “calculate…” and “determines…” steps do not specify how to calculate the current level of breathing state, probe pressing amount, or subject posture as indicators, and determine an appropriateness degree of the calculated indicators. The physician can calculate the indicators, and determine an “appropriateness degree” of the calculated indicators using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claim 4 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “instruct…” step does not specify how to calculated the amount change of the indicators, or how to determine the examination is appropriate based on the indicator and appropriateness degree. The physician can calculate the indicators and amount change of the indicators, and determine an “appropriateness degree” using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
Claims 5 and 7-8 recites a judicial exception (abstract idea). The “instruct…” step does not specify how to change the indicators. The physician can change the indicators using their mind and a pen (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2A of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the step in the claim can be considered as processes that can be performed in the human mind (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because no details are given surrounding the step (see MPEP 2106, section III, step 2B of subject matter eligibility test flowchart). Therefore, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 US.C. 101.
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, 3-5, and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vignon et al. (US 10702248 B2, published July 7, 2020) in view of Han (KR 20150132920 A, published November 27, 2015) and Hahn (US 20250029509 A1, published January 23, 2025 with a priority date of July 20, 2023), hereinafter referred to as Vignon, Han, and Hahn, 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 the 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 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, which is specified as the cause (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 against the subject, 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 against the subject, 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 inappropriate, 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 (see para. 0009).
Furthermore, regarding claim 3, Hahn further teaches wherein the processor is configured to calculate at least one of a current level of the breathing state of the subject, a current level of the pressing amount of the ultrasound probe, or a current posture of the subject as an indicator related to the cause by performing the image analysis on the ultrasound image, and determines an appropriateness degree of the calculated indicator (see para. 0032 – “The instructions determined according to method 100 may further include a position 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.”; see para. 0208 – “If method 100 detects that for example the pressure exerted was not sufficient, or the image quality is inferior, method 100 may provide further assistance to the subject and repeat imaging.” Measuring current breathing of subject, posture of subject, or probe pressure as appropriateness degree).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Hahn 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 (see para. 0032 – “The instructions determined according to method 100 may further include a position 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.”; see para. 0208 – “If method 100 detects that for example the pressure exerted was not sufficient, or the image quality is inferior, method 100 may provide further assistance to the subject and repeat imaging.” Instructions to adjust current breathing of subject, posture of subject, or probe pressure (appropriateness degree) to target breathing of subject, posture of subject, or probe pressure).
Furthermore, regarding claims 5 and 7-8, Hahn further teaches wherein the processor is configured to instruct the user to change at least one of the breathing state of the subject, the pressing amount of the ultrasound probe against the subject, or the 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 (see para. 0032 – “The instructions determined according to method 100 may further include a position guidance for the subject…In case of an ultrasound imaging exam, this may involve instructions on holding the ultrasound probe, placing the ultrasound probe [probe position and angle], breathing instructions [breathing state], pressure applied [pressing amount] by the ultrasound probe on the subject's surface, etc.”; see para. 0208 – “If method 100 detects that for example the pressure exerted was not sufficient, or the image quality is inferior, method 100 may provide further assistance to the subject and repeat imaging.” Instructions to adjust current breathing of subject, posture of subject, or probe pressure to target breathing of subject, posture of subject, or probe pressure).
The motivation for claims 3-5 and 7-8 was shown previously in claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sugiyama et al. (US 20210315545 A1, published October 14, 2021) discloses adjusting the state of the ultrasonic probe 10 (including pressing amount of probe, see para. 0062 and Fig. 4) on the basis of a candidate state of the ultrasonic probe 10 determined by the presentation function 125 to perform diagnosis on the subject (see para. 0092).
Arai (US 20070010743 A1, published January 11, 2007) discloses a breathing sensor 117 for detecting the amount of breathing of the patient 103 and a posture sensor 118 for detecting the body movement are provided (Fig. 6; see para. 0061).
Kruecker et al. (US 20240074738 A1, published March 7, 2024) teaches outputting the retrieved scan window, probe orientation, patient position, and/or the earlier image to, e.g., a display to provide guidance for the user, and the user can then use this guidance to position the patient and ultrasound probe during the subsequent imaging procedure (see para. 0006).
Chaudhury et al. (US 20220015722 A1, published January 20, 2022) discloses tune patient position and/or posture in an acquisition window of an imaging system to reduce scan time and/or enhance image quality, and coded haptic signal may be used with benefit during imaging procedures for imparting instructions such as “Breath hold” and “Stay still”.
Ronner et al. (US 20240115235 A1, published June 11, 2024 with a priority date of July 6, 2022) discloses moving the probe to find an optimal position for each of the target view(s) based on estimated direction information generated by the algorithm for different probe positions and to capture at the optimal position for each of the target view(s), image(s).
Koizumi et al. (JP 2023125697 A, published September 7, 2023) discloses maintain the position, posture, and pressing force of the probe when the image satisfies the predetermined conditions, and when the image does not satisfy the predetermined conditions, the organ can be tracked in real time by adjusting the position, posture, and pressing force of the probe.
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