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 Interpretation
In regards to claim 2, the phrasing of the claim is fairly broad, “wherein the thumbnail is information regarding the cross-section of the organ.” It does not quite rise to the level of a 112(d) rejection, but it is not that much more than what is required by Claim 1. As such, it appears that any prior art that reads upon claim 1 would also read upon this claim.
In regards to claim 7, the phrasing of the claim is fairly broad. It does not quite rise to the level of a 112(d) rejection, but it is not much more than what is required by Claim 1. As such, it appears that any prior art that reads upon claim 1 would also read upon this claim.
In regards to claim 13, the phrasing of the claim is fairly convoluted. It appears to only require that the image and any subsequent analysis produced to be different from one of the other images. This does not rise to the level of a 112(b) rejection, but it appears to make the claim able to be read upon by any piece of prior art that reads upon claim 1. As such, it is being interpreted to mean that specifically. If that is not the intended meaning, applicant may respond to this interpretation in their response or amend the claim to make it more clear.
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 1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims recite a mental process achieved via generic computer terminology. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the generically recited computer elements do not add significantly more. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the recited elements of “processing circuitry” are generic and can include any and all types of circuitry that can achieve a process. Further, the “ultrasound diagnostic apparatus” cannot be said to be significantly more than the “processing circuitry” since it is just comprised of the previously claimed “processing circuitry”. The “non-transitory computer-readable storage medium” is simply a form of memory or storage to contain a program of some kind. That is a normal usage for a memory is to store programs in the context of computers. As such, the additional elements do not add significantly more.
In regards to claim 1, an analysis apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain a thumbnail of each of multiple pieces of cross-section image data related to first cross-section image data selected by a user and showing a cross-section of an organ (A person of ordinary skill much like the user can select or obtain a thumbnail and be further shown the related cross-section of an organ as the cross section is merely a downscaled version of the cross section, simply seeing the thumbnail is showing the cross-section); specify, using the multiple thumbnails obtained, a cross-section of an organ included in each of the multiple thumbnails (A person of ordinary skill in the art and can identify the kind of organ included in multiple thumbnails by simply observing the thumbnails of said organs); and select a cross-section for use as a target of analysis other than a cross-section selected by the user from the specified cross-sections based on a degree of association between the first cross-section image data and each of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data (A person of ordinary skill in the art can select a different cross section from another user by using some form of association to choose out of multiple other pieces of image data).
In regards to claim 2, wherein the thumbnail is information regarding the cross- section of the organ (As thumbnails, particularly for images, are often a downscaled version of the image, the image itself is information regarding the cross section, so a person of ordinary skill in the art can readily identify that).
In regards to claim 3, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the multiple thumbnails of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data acquired in a same mode as a mode of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that acquires the first cross-section image data (A person of ordinary skill in the art can further obtain multiple pieces of image data acquired by the same machine in the same setting, and they can further obtain thumbnails of that whether via their drawing on a piece of paper or them being printed onto a piece of paper for them to see).
Further, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the multiple thumbnails of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data acquired in a same mode as a mode of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that acquires the first cross-section image data (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as it is merely selecting a data type to be manipulated)
In regards to claim 4, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to search for the multiple thumbnails in order of closeness of a time at which each of the multiple pieces of cross- section image data is acquired to a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired (A person of ordinary skill in the art can search for thumbnails that were made relatively close to each other in order of time by checking the time stamps for the thumbnails or if the information contained on the thumbnail in the title included when they were taken).
In regards to claim 5, wherein the degree of association is based on a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired (A person of ordinary skill in the art would be reasonably able to associate the image data that was taken in close proximity in regards to time as being more associated with each other over image data taken at very disparate times).
In regards to claim 6, wherein the degree of association is based on at least one of a heart rate, a type of probe, or phase information of stress echocardiography attached to the first cross-section image data (A person of ordinary skill in the art can easily associate various medical factors such as a heart rate at the time of imaging or the type of imaging system used or even the phase at which the imaging is performed with image data derived from either the same patient or patients under similar physical conditions, the same imaging device, or at which phase the device was at).
In regards to claim 7, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the degree of association between the first cross-section image data and each of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data (A person of ordinary skill in the art can determine whether multiple images are associated with each other whether it be by their general appearance or by their conditions or even when the images were taken in comparison to one another).
In regards to claim 8, wherein the target of analysis is a group of cross-sections of a heart (The data analyzed can be that of a heart or any other organ).
Further, wherein the target of analysis is a group of cross-sections of a heart (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as merely identifying that only heart images are used is selecting a particular data type to be manipulated where the process could be performed with a number of other organs at least as claimed).
In regards to claim 9, wherein the group includes an apical two chamber view, an apical three chamber view, and an apical four chamber view, or an apical two chamber view, an apical four chamber view, a parasternal long-axis view, and a parasternal short-axis view (This is insignificant extra-solution activity as merely identifying that only heart images are used is selecting a particular data type to be manipulated where the process could be performed with a number of other organs at least as claimed).
In regards to claim 10, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the multiple thumbnails in such a manner that the multiple thumbnails are rearranged in order of closeness of a time at which each of the multiple pieces of cross- section image data is acquired to a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired (A person of ordinary skill can rearrange images based on when they were taken or the thumbnails of those images and display them in such a manner).
In regards to claim 11, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the multiple thumbnails in such a manner that a form of display is changed according to whether they are cross-section image data related to the target of analysis (This claim is fairly broad. A person of ordinary skill can display the thumbnails and change a form of display depending on the target of analysis by either rearranging them in chronological order or in some other order or by some degree of association).
In regards to claim 12, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a result of analysis by analyzing cross-section image data in the target of analysis including the first cross-section image data, and display the cross-section image data in the target of analysis and the result of analysis (A person of ordinary skill in the art can analyze an image by simply looking at the image and drawing an opinion of the image, and they can further display their thoughts via pen and paper).
In regards to claim 13, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display cross-section image data in a different target of analysis including different cross-section image data selected by the user and a different result of analysis generated from the different target of analysis, wherein the cross-section image data in the different target of analysis differs from cross-section image data in the target of analysis in at least one piece of cross-section image data (The claim as written merely requires that the image data of two different parts would generate two different results when analyzed. As such, if a person of ordinary skill in the art looked at two different images and analyzed them in the manner for the rejection for claim 13, they may achieve different results which would read upon this claim).
In regards to claims 14-15, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 7-8, 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Masami et al. (JP2024170786A), hereinafter referred to as Masami.
In regards to claim 1, Masami discloses an analysis apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain a thumbnail of each of multiple pieces of cross-section image data related to first cross-section image data selected by a user and showing a cross-section of an organ (Paragraphs 50 and 37, Paragraph 50 discloses that multiple thumbnails can be used to designate the frame data where paragraph 37 discloses that the frame data is cross-sectional data); specify, using the multiple thumbnails obtained, a cross-section of an organ included in each of the multiple thumbnails (Paragraphs 47 and 74, paragraph 47 discloses that the tissue model used corresponds to an organ such as the liver or heart where paragraph 74 discloses that the specific tissue model used corresponds to the subject of the ultrasound examination which would be a specification of the organ); and select a cross-section for use as a target of analysis other than a cross-section selected by the user from the specified cross-sections based on a degree of association between the first cross-section image data and each of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data (Paragraph 71, Discloses a matching score for the thumbnails that is a percentage that shows how similar the images are which would be a degree of association).
In regards to claim 2, Masami discloses wherein the thumbnail is information regarding the cross- section of the organ (Paragraph 47, Discloses that the target for the tissue model can be the heart or liver which are both organs, so the associated cross-section would be of those organs).
In regards to claim 3, Masami discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to obtain the multiple thumbnails of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data acquired in a same mode as a mode of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus that acquires the first cross-section image data (Paragraph 68, Discloses that the tomographic images are taken at the same mode as each other and using a specific mode for each).
In regards to claim 4, Masami discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to search for the multiple thumbnails in order of closeness of a time at which each of the multiple pieces of cross- section image data is acquired to a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired (Paragraph 29 and 37, Paragraph 29 discloses that the thumbnail images are displayed in the order in which they are acquired or in sequence which would be an ordering by closeness in time where paragraph 37 discloses the search function described by the claim).
In regards to claim 7, Masami discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to calculate the degree of association between the first cross-section image data and each of the multiple pieces of cross-section image data (Paragraph 71, Discloses a matching score for the thumbnails that is a percentage that shows how similar the images are which would be a degree of association which is used for multiple pieces of data).
In regards to claim 8, Masami discloses wherein the target of analysis is a group of cross-sections of a heart (Paragraph 47, Discloses that the target for the tissue model can be the heart which would indicate that the associated cross sections are of the heart).
In regards to claim 10, Masami discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the multiple thumbnails in such a manner that the multiple thumbnails are rearranged in order of closeness of a time at which each of the multiple pieces of cross- section image data is acquired to a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired (Paragraph 29, Paragraph 29 discloses that the thumbnail images are displayed in the order in which they are acquired or in sequence which would be an ordering by closeness in time).
In regards to claim 11, Masami discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display the multiple thumbnails in such a manner that a form of display is changed according to whether they are cross-section image data related to the target of analysis (Paragraph 71, Discloses a matching score for the thumbnails that is a percentage that shows how similar the images are which would mean that at the lower percentages this would constitute different target as they are not matching or very few features are matching).
In regards to claim 13, Masami discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to display cross-section image data in a different target of analysis including different cross-section image data selected by the user and a different result of analysis generated from the different target of analysis, wherein the cross-section image data in the different target of analysis differs from cross-section image data in the target of analysis in at least one piece of cross-section image data (Paragraph 71, Discloses a matching score for the thumbnails that is a percentage that shows how similar the images are which would mean that at the lower percentages this would constitute different target as they are not matching or very few features are matching that would render the image data different from one another and any subsequent analysis to be different from one another).
In regards to claims 14-15, they are similar to claim 1, and they are similarly rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 5 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masami et al. (JP2024170786A), hereinafter referred to as Masami, in view of Gardella et al. (US 20240277312 A1), hereinafter referred to as Gardella.
In regards to claim 5, Masami does not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of association is based on a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired.
However, Gardella does disclose wherein the degree of association is based on a time at which the first cross-section image data is acquired (Paragraphs 95 and 99-101, These paragraphs disclose that the time or time stamps may be associated with the frames or images where they were taken and used to associate each image with each other).
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as further incorporating the time stamps of the images into the matching degree of Masami would provide a predictable increase in accuracy. Masami already displays the images in sequence, but the matching score of Masami is not explicitly disclosed to factor in the time stamps. As such, two images taken in a similar time frame may have a matching degree that does not fully reflect the truth particularly if the images of the patient appear to be substantially different. As such, incorporating the time stamps and a recency of the image would allow for the matching degree of Masami to be more accurate. As such, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts.
In regards to claim 12, Gardella discloses wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to generate a result of analysis by analyzing cross-section image data in the target of analysis including the first cross-section image data, and display the cross-section image data in the target of analysis and the result of analysis (Paragraph 64, Discloses that the heart images can be further analyzed to determine an analysis and analysis results).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masami et al. (JP2024170786A), hereinafter referred to as Masami, in view of Nabatame et al. (US 20170256082 A1), hereinafter referred to as Nabatame.
In regards to claim 6, Masami does not explicitly disclose wherein the degree of association is based on at least one of a heart rate, a type of probe, or phase information of stress echocardiography attached to the first cross-section image data.
However, Nabatame does disclose wherein the degree of association is based on at least one of a heart rate, a type of probe, or phase information of stress echocardiography attached to the first cross-section image data (Paragraph 39, Discloses the model and individual ID of the ultrasonic probe are stored in memory and can be used to associate certain images with this information).
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as further incorporating the make and model of the imager into the matching degree of Masami would provide a predictable increase in accuracy. Imaging modalities can vary in abilities or functionality depending upon things like age of the makes and models of the imagers. As such, two images taken in a similar imager may have a matching degree that does not fully reflect the truth particularly if the images of the patient appear to be substantially different. As such, incorporating the information of the make and model of the imager would allow for the matching degree of Masami to be more accurate. As such, it would be obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Masami et al. (JP2024170786A), hereinafter referred to as Masami, in view of Chono et al. (US 20110082371 A1), hereinafter referred to as Chono.
In regards to claim 9, Masami does not explicitly disclose wherein the group includes an apical two chamber view, an apical three chamber view, and an apical four chamber view, or an apical two chamber view, an apical four chamber view, a parasternal long-axis view, and a parasternal short-axis view.
However, Chono does disclose wherein the group includes an apical two chamber view, an apical three chamber view, and an apical four chamber view, or an apical two chamber view, an apical four chamber view, a parasternal long-axis view, and a parasternal short-axis view (Paragraph 35, Chono discloses that the sections they obtain are the parasternal long-axis view, the parasternal short-axis view, the apical two chamber view, the apical long axis view, and the apical four chamber review which would cover the second group presented in the claim).
It would be obvious to combine the teachings of these two arts as it would be simple substitution. Masami already discloses acquiring cross-sections of the relevant organs, in this case, a heart. However, Masami does not explicitly name what types of cross-sections are acquired. Chono discloses the particular cross-sections of the heart that can be acquired. As such, one could simply substitute the cross-sections of the heart of Masami with the more particular cross-sections of the heart from Chono. As such, it would be obvious to combine.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hirai (US-20160018520-A1) discloses associating the particular angle and position of the probe used which is close to the claimed material in claim 6.
Meng et al. (US-20230215000-A1) discloses an ultrasonic imaging method, including: generating a plurality of anatomical plane schematics, and causing a display to display the same, each one of the plurality of anatomical plane schematics respectively corresponding to a different anatomical plane of interest; acquiring an ultrasonic image of the anatomical plane of interest; and automatically generating an ultrasonic image thumbnail of the anatomical plane of interest, automatically replacing the anatomical plane schematic corresponding to the anatomical plane of interest with the ultrasonic image thumbnail, and causing the display to display the same. Also provided in the present application are an ultrasonic imaging system and a non-transitory computer-readable medium. This is a similar method to the application.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CONOR AIDAN O'MALLEY whose telephone number is (571)272-0226. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 am. - 5:00 pm. 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, Gregory Morse can be reached at 571 272-3838. 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.
/CONOR A O'MALLEY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2675
/GREGORY A MORSE/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2698
Prosecution Insights