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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviated term “2D” in line 3 should be defined in its first occurrence in claim 1.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviated term “2D” in line 6 should be defined in its first occurrence in claim 11.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: the abbreviated term “2D” in line 4s should be defined in its first occurrence in claim 12.
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.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Specifically, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, the computer program comprising a computer readable medium can be directed merely to a signal which is considered non-statutory. Examiner suggests amending the claims 15 to incorporate the phrase “non-transitory”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-5 and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zong et al. (US 2022/0211348; hereinafter Zong).
Regarding claims 1 and 15, Zong discloses a guided ultrasound imaging. Zong shows computer implemented method performed as part of an ultrasound (see par. [0019], [0059]), US, examination of a target of a subject, the method comprising: i) causingwhether the target is closer to the first 2D US image or one of the one or more other 2D US images (see par. [0030] fig. 8).
Regarding claim 2, Zong shows determining a directional guidance
Regarding claim 3, Zong shows sending a message to cause a display to display the first 2D US image, and not to display the one or more other 2D US images (see fig. 3-6).
Regarding claim 4, Zone shows using a machine learning model to determine a first confidence score describing how closely the first 2D US image corresponds to the target (see par. [0020], [0021], [0031]) and a second confidence score describing how closely the one or more other 2D US images correspond to the target (see par. [0020], [0021], [0031]). The examiner notes that the claim limitation “...wherein the directional guidance indicates a direction toward a second scanning plane associated with the one or more other 2D US images, if the second confidence score is greater than the first confidence score” is directed to a conditional statement and to express a claim that is dependent on certain conditions being met or circumstance existing, and does not further limit the claim. The claim limitation wherein the directional guidance indicates a direction toward a second scanning plane associated with the one or more other 2D US images, if the second confidence score is greater than the first confidence score is not required if the second confidence score is not greater than the first confidence score.
Regarding claim 5, Zone shows wherein the first confidence score is an aggregation of a plurality of confidence scores, each of the plurality of confidence scores reflecting a confidence with which the machine learning model detects a respective anatomical feature associated with the target, in the first 2D US image (see par. [0020], [0021], [0031]).
Regarding claim 7, Zong shows repeating steps i)-iv) for consecutive groups of first 2D US image and one or more other 2D US images (see par. [0030] and fig. 8); and updating the directional guidance in real time so as to provide real-time guidance as to the direction in which to move the US probe to image the target (see par. [0030] and fig. 8).
Regarding claim 8, Zong shows wherein the target is a target structure in the subject, or a target plane through the subject (see par. [0117])..
Regarding claim 9, Zong shows wherein the first scanning plane of the US probe is a central scanning plane of the US probe (see fig. 1 and 2; par. [0003]).
Regarding claim 10, Zong shows wherein the one or more other 2D US images are in scanning planes adjacent to the first scanning plane (see par. [0029]).
Regarding claim 11, Zong discloses a guided ultrasound imaging. Zong shows an apparatusfirst scanning plane (see par. [0029]; fig. 1 and 8) wherein the sub-volume has a smaller spanning angle than that of a 3D mode of the probe (see par. [0029] and fig. 8) and iii) determine whether the target is closer to the first 2D US image or one of the one or more other 2D US images (see par. [0030] and fig. 8).
Regarding claim 12, Zong discloses a guided ultrasound imaging. Zong shows an ultrasound, US, imaging system
Regarding claim 13, Zong shows comprising the apparatus of claim 12 and a display to display the first 2D US image and directional guidance (see par. [0031]), the directional guidance comprising a direction in which to move the US probe to image the target (see par. [0056]), and being determined based on the results of step iii); and wherein only the first 2D image is displayed on the display, the one or more other 2D US images are not displayed (see fig. 3-6).
Regarding claim 14, Zion shows wherein the ultrasound system is configured to repeat steps i), ii), and iii), displaying the first 2D US image and not displaying the one or more other 2D US images in each iteration (see par. [0030] and fig. 8).
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 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zong et al. (US 2022/0211348; hereinafter Zong), in view of Chao et al. (US 2020/0129142; hereinafter Chao).
Regarding claim 6, Zong shows a multi-planar reformat of the first 2D US image and the one or more other 2D US images (see par. [0029], [0030]), wherein the directional guidance further comprises a tilt direction (see par. [0044]), whether the target plane is closer to the first 2D US image or the 2D US image (see fig. 8 and par. [0029], [0030]), but fails to explicitly state obtaining an oblique 2D US image at an oblique angle to the first scanning plane, and.
Chao discloses ultrasound imaging device. Chao teaches obtaining an oblique 2D US image at an oblique angle to the first scanning plane (see par. [0058]), and provide directional guidance further based on the oblique angle (see par. [0074]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing of the claimed invention, to have utilized the teaching of obtaining an oblique 2D US image at an oblique angle to the first scanning plane, and provide directional guidance further based on the oblique angle in the invention of Zong, as taught by Chao, to provide better quality image by giving instructions to place the ultrasound probe at better location. The examiner notes that upon incorporating the teaching of Chao into the invention of Zong would provide the tilt direction having been determined based on the oblique angle.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED whose telephone number is (571)270-3134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday, 9am to 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 M 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.
/SHAHDEEP MOHAMMED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
