DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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
Applicant's arguments filed 07/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection.
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.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hossack (US 6014473, of record) in view of Sowards (US 2023/0132148).
Regarding claim 1, Hossack discloses an ultrasound device, comprising: a first ultrasound array that transmits a first ultrasound transmission signal and receives a first ultrasound reception signal reflected from a target object; a second ultrasound array that is arranged in a first direction based on the first ultrasound array to transmit a second ultrasound transmission signal and receive a second ultrasound reception signal reflected from the target object; a third ultrasound array that is arranged in a second direction opposite to the first direction based on the first ultrasound array to transmit a third ultrasound transmission signal and receive a third ultrasound reception signal reflected from the target object (Figs. 2-4, 6, 12 – three ultrasound arrays, the first array would be the image data array “18”, the second and third would be the tracking arrays “20” and “22”); and a processor that provides alignment information for aligning the target object and the ultrasound probe based on the first ultrasound reception signal, the second ultrasound reception signal, and the third ultrasound reception signal (4:66-67…5:1-11: motion estimator uses data acquired from all three ultrasound arrays “18”, “20”, and “22”). Hossack does not explicitly disclose that the processor provides a first comparison result according to a shape of a blood vessel included in an ultrasound image generated based on the first ultrasound reception signal. However, Sowards teaches using the shape of a blood vessel to detect an alignment ([0099]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the shape detection of Sowards to the ultrasound system of Hossack, as to provide robust alignment means.
Regarding claim 2, Hossack discloses that a control unit included in the ultrasound device transmits the second ultrasound transmission signal so as to be focused in a direction perpendicular or in a predetermined angle direction with respect to a center of the second ultrasound array, and transmits the third ultrasound transmission signal so as to be focused in a direction perpendicular or in a predetermined angle direction with respect to a center of the third ultrasound array (Figs. 2 and 3 show that the angle is, at least, in a predetermined direction with respect to a center).
Regarding claim 3, Hossack discloses that the processor compares a first amplitude signal corresponding to a magnitude of the second ultrasound reception signal and a second amplitude signal corresponding to a magnitude of the third ultrasound reception signal and provides a second comparison result; and provides an alignment position and direction of the ultrasound probe included in the alignment information according to the second comparison result (4:66-67…5:1-11: motion estimator performs a comparison of second and third reception signals which are used to perform an alignment).
Regarding claims 4-7, Hossack does not explicitly disclose that there is a comparison of similarity/difference values and boundary/interval values for the second and third received signals. However, Hossack teaches performing, at least, a cross correlation of data acquired from the two opposite-sided tracking arrays to track motion of the probe (9:13-54). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the recited steps which are conventionally-known quantitative analyses, as to provide conventional and robust analysis of the tracking array data. An artisan would have understood that the nature and consistency of the values acquired from these two tracking arrays of Hossack would contribute to the claimed alignment data.
Regarding claim 8, while Hossack does not explicitly disclose multiplying first and second amplitude signals to obtain a multiplication signal, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to multiply the signals from the multiple sensors of a detection system, so as to attain robust sensor fusion.
Regarding claim 10, Hossack does not explicitly disclose that the processor provides a second comparison result according to a difference length corresponding to a difference value between a length of a major axis and a length of a minor axis passing through a center of the blood vessel included in the ultrasound image. However, Sowards teaches detecting an ellipse that is defined by a major and minor axes and their lengths ([0104]). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to apply the elliptical detection of Sowards to the ultrasound imaging of Hossack, as to provide robust detection of a vessel’s shape.
Regarding claims 11 and 12, while Hossack does not explicitly disclose conveying the alignment information as visual, audio, or tactile information, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present invention to adopt these means of communication as they are conventional, routine, and well-known ways to communicate with a user.
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jason Ip whose telephone number is (571) 270-5387. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9a-5p 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached on (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.
/JASON M IP/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3793
Prosecution Insights