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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because they fail to label the element boxes in Figure 11. Without some indication as to the content of the boxes (or preferably symbols of the actual elements) it is not clear as to what the elements are and they are not explanatory to a reader as a quick method of determining the general background of the invention. See MPEP 608.02 and 37 CFR 1.84 (o) -- Legends --
Suitable descriptive legends may be used, or may be required by the Examiner, where necessary for understanding of the drawing, subject to approval by the Office. They should contain as few words as possible.
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 1-6, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lotter (US 2023/0091506 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Lotter discloses a method for obtaining an overall score indicative of the presence of a target pathology of a subject during a medical scan procedure, the method comprising: acquiring images during the medical scan procedure; and iteratively: identifying whether a newly acquired image corresponds to one of a set of pre-determined views; for a newly acquired image which does correspond to one of the pre-determined views (see paragraphs 0006 and 0039): selecting a predictive model trained on the pre-determined view or multiple predetermined views that have been acquired, from a set of predictive models each trained on one or more of the pre-determined views for the target pathology (see paragraphs 0040-0043; wherein the image with a malignant region is considered as the claimed target pathology) inputting the newly acquired image into the selected predictive model; and generating, for a first iteration, or updating, for subsequent iterations, an overall score indicative of the presence of the target pathology using the output of the selected predictive model (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034-0037, 0052, 0060).
With respect to claims 2 and 10, Lotter discloses providing an alert to a clinician performing the medical scan procedure in response to: the overall score exceeding a pre-determined threshold (see paragraphs 0052 and 0071); or the number of acquired images, corresponding to distinct pre-determined views, exceeding a pre-determined view threshold.
With respect to claim 3, Lotter discloses iteratively updating an overall confidence measure, indicating the confidence in the overall score (see paragraph 0092).
With respect to claim 4, Lotter discloses inputting the newly acquired image into the selected predictive model to obtain a per-image score indicative of the presence of a target pathology in the newly acquired image (see paragraphs 0040-0043) and a per-image confidence measure for the corresponding per-image score (see paragraph 0092); and generating or updating the overall score and the overall confidence measure using the per-image score and per-image confidence measure (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034-0037, 0052, 0060).
With respect to claim 5, Lotter discloses iteratively updating the overall score comprises iteratively averaging the latest available per-image score with the overall score (see paragraphs 0047-0049; 0118).
With respect to claims 6 and 12, Lotter discloses in response to two or more of the acquired images corresponding to distinct pre-determined views (see paragraphs 0006 and 0039): selecting a predictive model trained on the two or more corresponding pre-determined views from the set of predictive models; and inputting the two or more acquired images into the selected predictive model to assess the presence of the target pathology in the two or more acquired images (see paragraphs 0040-0043).
With respect to claim 8, Lotter discloses a computer program carrier comprising computer program code which, when executed on a computing device having a processing system, causes the processing system to perform all the steps of the method according to 1 (see computer #126 in Figure 1).
With respect to claim 9, Lotter discloses a system for obtaining an overall score indicative of the presence of a target pathology of a subject during a medical scan procedure, the system comprising a processor configured to: control a scanning system to acquire images during the medical scan procedure; and iteratively: identify whether a newly acquired image corresponds to one of a set of pre-determined views; for a newly acquired image which does correspond to one of the pre-determined views (see paragraphs 0006 and 0039): select a predictive model trained on the pre-determined view or predetermined views that have been acquired, from a set of predictive models each trained on one or more of the pre-determined views for the target pathology (see paragraphs 0040-0043; wherein the image with a malignant region is considered as the claimed target pathology); input the newly acquired image into the selected predictive model; and generate, for a first iteration, or update, for subsequent iterations, an overall score indicative of the presence of the target pathology using the output of the selected predictive model (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034-0037, 0052, 0060).
With respect to claim 11, Lotter discloses the processor is configured to: input the newly acquired image into the selected predictive model to obtain a per-image score indicative of the presence of a target pathology in the newly acquired image (see paragraphs 0040-0043); and generate or update the overall score using the per-image score (see paragraph 0092), and wherein the predictive models are configured to output a per-image confidence measure for the corresponding per-image score and the processor is further configured to iteratively update an overall confidence measure, during the medical scan procedure, with the per-image confidence measures of the acquired images corresponding to one of the pre-determined views (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034-0037, 0052, 0060).
With respect to claim 14, Lotter discloses a method of assessing the presence of a target pathology of a subject during a medical scan procedure, comprising: for a newly acquired image of the scan procedure which corresponds to one of a set of pre-determined views (see paragraphs 0006 and 0039): obtaining an overall score indicative of the presence of the target pathology based on previously acquired images and the newly acquired image (see paragraphs 0040-0043; wherein the image with a malignant region is considered as the claimed target pathology), such that the overall score is dynamically and iteratively updated in response to the acquisition of newly acquired images; and displaying a representation of the overall score together with the newly acquired image (see Abstract and paragraphs 0034-0037, 0052, 0060).
With respect to claim 15, Lotter discloses for a newly acquired image which corresponds to one of a set of pre-determined views (see paragraphs 0006 and 0039): obtaining an overall confidence measure in respect of the overall score (see paragraph 0092); and displaying a representation of the overall confidence measure (see paragraph 0066).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lotter (US 2023/0091506 A1) in view of Levi et al. (US 2022/0028524 A1).
With respect to claims 7 and 13, Lotter discloses the claimed invention as stated above except for specifying that the medical scan procedure is a cardiac ultrasound scan and the target pathology is a wall motion abnormality in the heart function. However, Levi discloses the medical scan procedure is a cardiac ultrasound scan (see paragraph 0037 indicating the usage of an ultrasound device to acquire the medical image) and the target pathology is a wall motion abnormality in the heart function (see paragraphs 0060-0062 discloses a cardiac event or condition, e.g., cardiovascular condition, heart attack, etc considered as the claimed abnormality in the heart function). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the medical scan procedure is a cardiac scan and the target pathology is a wall motion abnormality in the heart function as taught by Levi in combination with Lotter’s ultrasound scan/ medical image for the purpose of increasing the ability to diagnose a suspected heart condition as one of multiple regions that need immediate attention and decrease the time required transfer a patient from a first point of care to a healthcare facility equipped to treat the patient or the right specialist according to the diagnosis (see paragraph 0060).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional prior art cited in the PTO 892 not relied upon discloses medical systems that use training models to find a pathological value or parameter by comparing the reference/predetermined image with the acquired image to update the acquisition score that indicates pathological value or parameter.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DIXOMARA VARGAS whose telephone number is (571)272-2252. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Raymond Keith can be reached at 571-270-1790. 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.
/DIXOMARA VARGAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3798
