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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 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. Claim 1 is rejected because it is directed toward an accelerated coupled filtering method for tissue deformation analysis but fails to provide any analysis. Claim 11 appears to have a similar issue
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) processing steps to apply filters to pre-acquired images, estimating a value for motion parameters and determining if the value meets a threshold. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because nothing is done with any updated value. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because there are no other claimed elements but for the processing device. Claim 11 appears to have a similar analysis with respect to the processing device steps.
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, 3-11 and 13-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2018/0132830 to Mahmound et al. “Mahmoud” in view of U.S. Patent No. 9,286,691 to Yu et al. “Yu”.
As for Claims 1, 4, 11 and 14, Mahmoud discloses an ultrasound system and method for reconstructing displacement and stain maps of human tissue (Abstract) by estimating a displacement field between two frames B-mode frames (e.g. pre/post compression) (Paragraph [0025]).
However, Mahmound does not expressly disclose steps to apply filters on the images as claimed.
Yu teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to analyzing ultrasound images (Abstract) where filters are applied to compensate for motion decorrelation (Column 3, Lines 25-55). Yu utilizes a motion matrix describing the rotation, shearing, and scaling to be used in filtering (Column 14, Lines 40-55) along the axial direction, elevational direction and lateral direction (Column 28, Lines 5-60). Yu determines a matching metric and compares it to a threshold to demonstrate optimal motion parameters (e.g. values) that meet one or more accomplishment criteria (Column 16, Line 60-Column 17, Line 12; Column 22, Lines 19-62).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have modified the ultrasound system and method described by Mahmound with Yu’s processing steps to determine motion parameters between two images in order to understand the motion between ultrasound images improve the ultrasound tissue analysis. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
With respect to Claims 3 and 13, Yu discloses where images can be filtered by a convolution with a modified point spread function (PSF) (Column 15, Lines 3-22).
As for Claims 5 and 15, Yu explains the aforementioned processing steps can be performed on volume images with voxels (Column 29, Lines 15-30). Examiner notes the motion parameter determination steps in the axial, elevation and lateral planes would result in flattening surrounding voxels in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding Claim 6 and 16, Yu discloses wherein additional iterations can be used to refine the compensation of feature-motion decorrelation (Column 18, Lines 20-27).
As for Claims 7-8 and 17-18 Yu discloses wherein the processing device searches for optimal motion parameters and repeats the filtering in order to search for optimal motion parameters (Column 8, Lines 15-25). Fig. 10 depicts comparative results of the similarity between 3D ultrasound image volume pairs (Column 27, Lines 60-65; Column 28, Line 63-Column 29, Line 14). Such disclosures are considered to read on the claimed steps in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
With respect to Claims 9 and 19, Yu discloses various calculations can be used for a matching metric (e.g. correlation coefficients, sum of squared distances, the sum of absolute distance) (Column 10, Lines 13-38).
As for Claims 10 and 20, Yu discloses wherein accomplishment criteria for optimal motion parameters include gradient based methods which would appear to perform the claimed steps in its broadest reasonable interpretation.
Claim(s) 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mahmound and Yu as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of U.S. Publication No. 2022/0292637 to Huang et al. “Huang” or alternatively WO 2017/144716 to Patil et al. “Patil”.
As for Claims 2 and 12, Mahmound and Yu disclose a filtering method for tissue deformation analysis as described above but don’t specify filtering detected envelopes as claimed.
Huang teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to ultrasound imaging systems and methods where PSF can be used in any suitable format such as ultrasound envelope data, B-mode data and the like (Paragraph [0078]).
Alternatively Patil teaches from within a similar field of endeavor with respect to ultrasound deformation imaging where successive frames of ultrasonic image data can be operated on as r.f. data or as envelope data (Page 3, Lines 20-25).
Accordingly, one skilled in the art would have been motivated to have performed the filtering steps described by Mahmound and Yu on detected ultrasound envelope data as described by Huang or Patil in order to improve the motion determination. Such a modification merely involves combining prior art elements according to known techniques to yield predictable results (MPEP 2143).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER L COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-7373. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approximately 8AM-5PM.
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, Anne Kozak can be reached at 571-270-0552. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER L COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights