DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the communication received on January 7, 2026 concerning application No. 19/186,463 filed on August 22, 2025.
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-26 are currently pending.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 7, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 regarding the newly filed claim amendments related to the toolbar have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Kinicki is no longer being relied upon in the rejection.
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 regarding the prior art rejection have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to the applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “store the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data as time-synchronized data within a unitary data file having a common format, wherein the unitary data file comprises a timestamped associations between electrophysiological waveforms and ultrasound image frames to enable retrospective synchronized review”, examiner respectfully disagrees. As set forth in the previous office action Pagoulatos is being relied upon to teach the argued limitations. Specifically, [0045] discloses “the memory may store the signals acquired…EKG and ultrasound signal data may be stored…with associated information for synchronizing the signals” and claim 5 discloses “the synchronization circuitry is configured to store the signals received from the two or more of the ultrasound sensor, the EKG sensor, and the auscultation sensor in a memory in a synchronized manner”. [0061] additionally discloses storing the EKG data and ultrasound data in a combined manner, by storing the data within a combined manner, the data is being combined together and therefore has the same common format. Therefore the EKG (electrophysiological) data and the ultrasound image data are being stored within a unitary data file in a common format. [0059] further discloses “the synchronization module 400 synchronizes…EKG data, and ultrasound data by appending or associating time stamp information to each of these data”, therefore the data that is being stored comprises a timestamped association between the electrophysiological waveforms and ultrasound image frames that are being stored and since the data is being stored within a memory it is enabled for retrospective synchronized review. For at least these reasons Pagoulatos teaches the argued limitation recited above.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach “shared timing reference generated by a clock” now recited in claim 2, examiner respectfully disagrees. [0054] of Stuebe discloses synchronizing the EKG signal waveform with the acquired ultrasound image using a designated time generated by the system. The part of the system that generates the designated time is considered the shared timing reference generated by a clock. For at least these reasons Stuebe teaches the argued limitation recited above.
In response to applicant’s arguments that the prior art fails to teach the limitations of claims 6-9, 11-13, 15-18, 20-21, 23, and 26 on pgs. 11-13, examiner respectfully disagrees. The new combination of references in the rejections below teach the claim limitations. See the rejections below for further explanation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-4, 6-13, and 15-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites, “the toolbar is configured to dynamically reconfigure available ones of the control functions based on whether the first display portion is active or the second display portion is active such that the control functions available to the second display portion and not the first display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the first display portion is active and the control functions available to the first display portion and not the second display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the second display portion is active” is not described in the specification in such a way that reasonably conveys the inventor had possession of the limitation when the application was filed. Applicant draws support for the limitation from [0115], [0117] of the PGPUB which corresponds to [0124] and [0126] of the specification, which discloses “A sixth portion of the GUI 400 b displays a plurality of mode dependent function keys 431 that change depending on which data window, 420 or 422, has focus thereby providing data-window specific functionalities” which discloses changing the function keys based on which data window is actively being used. However, nowhere in the specification could it be found that specifically discloses visually indicating certain functions as disabled, while remaining visible, when a specific display portion is active. For at least these reasons the limitation recited above is considered new matter.
Claims dependent upon the rejected claims above, but not directly addressed, are also rejected because they inherit the indefiniteness of the claim(s) they respectively depend upon.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-9, 11, 13, 15-16, 19-21, and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by Stuebe et al. (US 20130345563, hereinafter Stuebe) in view of Ota (US 20140221835) and Pagoulatos et al. (US 20190105019, hereinafter Pagoulatos).
Regarding claim 1, Stuebe teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing programmatic instructions that, when executed by a processor of a computing device ([0022] “the computing system 102 is configured to execute a set of instructions that are stored in one or more storage elements (e.g., instructions stored on a tangible and/or non-transitory computer readable storage medium) to control operation of the diagnostic system 100”), cause the processor to:
acquire a first data stream from an electrodiagnostic device, wherein the first data stream comprises electrophysiological data indicative of electrical activity in a nerve or muscle of a patient ([0021] discloses obtaining electrocardiogram data from an electrocardiogram device 106. The device 106 is considered the electrodiagnostic device and the first data stream is considered the electrocardiogram data which is indicative of electrical activity in the heart (muscle) of the patient. Also see [0027]);
acquire a second data stream from an ultrasound device, wherein the second data stream comprises ultrasound image data indicative of reflected acoustic energy from a tissue of the patient ([0021] discloses obtaining ultrasound image from an ultrasound imaging device 108, the ultrasound image is considered the second data stream. Also see [0027]);
generate a graphical user interface ([0039] “the graphical user interface (GUI) module 121 may coordinate with the other modules and the ECG and imaging device 106, 108 for displaying various objects in the display 110”) comprising:
a first display portion configured to display the electrophysiological data ([0047], [0053] and figs. 3-4 disclose displaying waveform portion 408 which includes signal waveform 410. [0048] discloses the signal waveform 410 represents the ECG data);
a second display portion configured to display the ultrasound image data ([0047] and figs. 3-4 disclose displaying image portion 402 where an ultrasound image is displayed); and
a toolbar comprising a persistent control interface shared by both the first display portion and the second display portion and configured to display control functions ([0047]-[0048], [0057] and figs. 3-4 disclose a control interface that includes operator controls 412 and selection elements 422 which represent the control functions being displayed and shared by both the first display portion and the second display portion);
receive user interaction data via the graphical user interface ([0040] “the workflow module 127 may be configured to respond to operator inputs during a workflow of the diagnostic system 100 and instruct the user interface 104 to show different screens to the operator on the display 110”); and
generates the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data as time-synchronized data within a unitary data file having a common format ([0074] discloses the report (unitary data file) is generated and includes the ECG measurement and the ultrasound image data obtained. [0054] further discloses the obtained ECG signal waveform is synchronized in time with the ultrasound image. The format of the report is considered the common format of the data), wherein the unitary data file comprises timestamped associations between electrophysiological waveforms and ultrasound image frames to enable retrospective synchronized review ([0054] “the signal waveform 410 may be synchronized with the acquired ultrasound image…the image frame 418 directly corresponds to a designated time during acquisition of the ultrasound image. the designated time and, consequently, the image frame 418 directly corresponds to an electrical measurement along the signal waveform 410”. Fig. 4 further shows the file enables retrospective synchronized review of the electrophysiological waveforms and the ultrasound image frames).
Stuebe does not specifically teach the toolbar is configured to dynamically reconfigure available ones of the controls functions based on whether the first display portion is active or the second display portion is active such that the control functions available to the second display portion and not the first display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the first display portion is active and the control functions available to the first display portion and not the second display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the second display portion is active.
However,
Ota in a similar field of endeavor teaches a toolbar configured to dynamically reconfigure available ones of the controls functions based on whether the first display portion is active or the second display portion is active such that the control functions available to the second display portion and not the first display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the first display portion is active and the control functions available to the first display portion and not the second display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the second display portion is active ([0110] and figs. 6-7 disclose when a first display portion UDa is active the control functions available to the second display portion UDb are visually indicated as being disabled while remaining visible (B6 in fig. 6 is grayed out) and when the second display portion UDb is available the control functions available to the first display portion UDa are visually indicated as being disabled while remaining visible (B7 in fig. 7 is grayed out)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the toolbar be configured to dynamically reconfigure available ones of the controls functions based on whether the first display portion is active or the second display portion is active such that the control functions available to the second display portion and not the first display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the first display portion is active and the control functions available to the first display portion and not the second display portion are visually indicated as disabled, while remaining visible, when the second display portion is active of Ota to the toolbar of Stuebe to allow for the predictable results of reducing clutter on the display, thereby making it easier for the user to locate the function they are searching for and increasing the efficiency of the procedure.
Stuebe in view of Ota do not specifically teach store the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data as time-synchronized data within a unitary data file having a common format, wherein the unitary data file comprises a timestamped associations between electrophysiological waveforms and ultrasound image frames to enable retrospective synchronized review.
However,
Pagoulatos in a similar field of endeavor teaches storing the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data as time-synchronized data within a unitary data file having a common format ([0045] “the memory may store the signals acquired…EKG and ultrasound signal data may be stored…with associated information for synchronizing the signals”. also see claim 5. [0061] “EKG data, and ultrasound data that are acquired at the same time and jointly stores the data in a combined manner in memory locations that are ordered”), wherein the unitary data file comprises a timestamped associations between electrophysiological waveforms and ultrasound image frames to enable retrospective synchronized review ([0059] “the synchronization module 400 synchronizes…EKG data, and ultrasound data by appending or associating time stamp information to each of these data”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the non-transitory computer-readable medium of Stuebe in view of Ota to store the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data as time-synchronized data within a unitary data file having a common format, wherein the unitary data file comprises a timestamped associations between electrophysiological waveforms and ultrasound image frames to enable retrospective synchronized review in order to analyze the data at the same time, thereby making the procedure more efficient, as recognized by Pagoulatos ([0004]).
Regarding claim 2, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches synchronizing the first and second data streams using a shared timing reference generated by a clock to generate the time-synchronized data ([0054] “the signal waveform 410 may be synchronized with the acquired ultrasound image…the image frame 418 directly corresponds to a designated time during acquisition of the ultrasound image. The designated time and, consequently, the image frame 418 directly corresponds to an electrical measurement along the signal waveform 410”. The part of the system that generates the designated time used to synchronize the waveform and frame is considered the clock used to generate the shared timing reference).
Regarding claim 3, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches generating the graphical user interface having the first display portion and the second display portion displayed concurrently (figs. 3-4 show the first and second display portions being displayed concurrently).
Regarding claim 4, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches generating the graphical user interface having the first display portion and the second display portion displayed side-by-side ([0047] and fig. 8 disclose displaying a diagnostic ultrasound image 407 side-by-side with the signal waveform 410).
Regarding claim 6, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches generate the graphical user interface having a second toolbar, separate from the toolbar, comprising a set of controls specific to the electrophysiological data (fig. 4 shows the generated time-selection elements 422 (second toolbar) are specific to the ECG data).
Regarding claim 7, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 6, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the second toolbar comprises at least one of a channel selection function, a filter control function, a stimulator control function, and an averaging function ([0057] discloses the elements 422 include time-selection elements which is considered at least a filter control option since the elements are filtering the data to a specific time).
Regarding claim 8, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 6, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches generate the graphical user interface having a third toolbar comprising a set of controls specific to the ultrasound image data (fig. 3 shows the toolbar in the bottom third of the graphical user interface which is considered the third toolbar).
Regarding claim 9, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 8, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the third toolbar comprises at least one of a zoom function, a trace function, a measurement tool function, an annotation function, or a needle enhancement function (fig. 3 discloses the third toolbar includes an accept/measure control which is considered at least a measurement tool option).
Regarding claim 11, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the graphical user interface further comprises a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion ([0050], figs. 3 and 8 disclose displaying reference illustrations/images concurrently with the ultrasound and ECG data) and configured to receive anatomical structure data and probe position data ([0049] discloses the reference illustration/image is obtained by the operator entering inputs to retrieve the desired reference image/illustration. The input reference illustration is considered the received anatomical structure data and probe position. “the reference illustration or reference image may show a designated orientation of an anatomical structure (e.g., heart) at a desired cardiac-cycle event”. Also see [0047] and [0050]).
Regarding claim 13, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion and configured to receive said user interaction data (figs. 3-4 and [0058] a measure button that is user-selectable in a third display portion concurrently displayed with the first and second display portions), wherein the user interaction data annotates or compares the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data ([0074] discloses the measurement includes generating a report that analyzes the measured ultrasound data with the ECG data in order to generate a report. The report generator compares the measured ultrasound data with the ECG data in order to generate the report in response to the user-selectable measurement button).
Regarding claim 15, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the graphical user interface further comprises a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion ([0050], figs. 3 and 8 disclose displaying reference illustrations/images concurrently with the ultrasound and ECG data) and configured to display a probe position control adapted to enable a user to annotate an anatomical location and probe orientation associated with the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data ([0049] discloses the reference illustration/image is obtained by the operator entering inputs to retrieve the desired reference image/illustration. The inputs are considered the probe position control adapted to enable a user to annotate (input) an anatomical location and probe orientation (reference image) associated with where the data is to be obtained from. “the reference illustration or reference image may show a designated orientation of an anatomical structure (e.g., heart) at a desired cardiac-cycle event”).
Regarding claim 16, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 15, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the probe position control is further adapted to enable the user to select from predefined anatomical diagrams indicating probe orientation relative to anatomical landmarks ([0047] discloses the reference illustration is a diagram that includes a representation of the anatomical structure. [0050] further discloses the illustration corresponds to a specific view and therefore indicates a probe orientation relative to anatomical landmarks).
Regarding claim 19, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches a first default state for the first display portion and a separate second default state for the second display portion and wherein the first default state and the second default state are configured to be activated based on whether an ultrasound modality or electrodiagnostic modality is selected ([0046] discloses displaying various display screens or windows based on selecting one of a plurality of tabs such as an ECG tab 322 and an ultrasound tab 323. Each of the display windows corresponding to the separate tabs is considered a default state for either the ECG display portion of the ultrasound display portion. The windows are activated by selecting the ECG modality tab or the ultrasound modality tab).
Regarding claim 20, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches generate said graphical user interface with an annotation overlay function, wherein, when executed, the annotation overlay function enables a visual presentation of user-entered data directly on an ultrasound image or an electrophysiological waveform ([0060] “figs. 5-7 illustrate respective measurement screens 450, 452, and 454 that may be shown to the operator during the measurement stage 266. The workflow 200 may include position at 224 a reference object 456 on a measurement frame 419 that was selected by…the operator”. The measurement stage is considered the annotation overlay function and the reference object 456 is the visual presentation of user-entered data on an ultrasound image).
Regarding claim 21, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches update, in real-time, the first display portion and the second display portion as data is acquired from both the electrodiagnostic device and the ultrasound device ([0007] “the method also includes adjusting a view of the heart in the real-time image”. Additionally, fig. 3 shows that the waveform 410 is actively being acquired in waveform portion 408 and is therefore being considered to be updated in real-time).
Regarding claim 24, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe further teaches the processor plays back electrophysiological data synchronized with ultrasound data ([0054] “the signal waveform 410 may be synchronized with the acquired ultrasound image”. [0057] further discloses the operator can adjust the time selection elements 422 thereby changing the image frame and playing back the electrodiagnostic data synchronized with the ultrasound data).
Claim(s) 10 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Chaing et al. (US 20190336101, hereinafter Chiang).
Regarding claim 10, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 9, as set forth above. Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos does not specifically teach the needle enhancement function is adapted to digitally enhance a visibility of a needle within the ultrasound image.
However,
Chiang in a similar field of ultrasound imaging teaches a needle enhancement function that is adapted to digitally enhance a visibility of a needle within the ultrasound image ([0519] “If a user system is licensed for needle enhancement, the system brightens the needle image as seen in fig. 72”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of digitally enhancing the visibility of the contents of the ultrasound image of Chiang to the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos to allow for the predictable results of increasing the visibility of the ultrasound image, thereby achieving a greater quality image.
Regarding claim 25, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos does not specifically teach the graphical user interface further comprises a function key that, when activated, toggles between the first display portion and the second display portion.
However,
Chiang in a similar field of ultrasound imaging teaches the graphical user interface further comprises a function key that, when activated, toggles between a first display portion and a second display portion ([0536] “pressing the update key toggles the 2D display between live and frozen”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the graphical user interface further comprises a function key that, when activated, toggles between the first display portion and the second display portion of Chiang to the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos to allow for the predictable results of seamlessly switching between display portions, thereby making the procedure more efficient.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Ota in view of Pagoulatos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Viggen (US 20200037997).
Regarding claim 12, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos does not specifically teach the graphical user interface further comprises a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion and comprising a muscle scoring table configured to receive user-entered annotations of the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data for a selected anatomical site.
However,
Viggen in a similar field of endeavor teaches the graphical user interface further comprises a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion (fig. 4 shows the measurement display 340 which is concurrently displayed with the ultrasound image 310 and the ECG 330) and comprising a muscle scoring table configured to receive user-entered annotations of the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data for a selected anatomical site ([0044] discloses the measurement display 340 includes caliper measurements (scores) of the heart (muscle) shown in ultrasound display 310. [0055] further discloses the selected frame is input from a user input module based on a specific period within the cardiac cycle (electrophysiological data) and [0056] discloses the caliper measurement locations within the ultrasound image are input by a user input module. Therefore the data for the muscle scoring table is based on user entered annotations of the electrophysiological data and ultrasound data for a selected anatomical site (heart)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of having the graphical user interface further comprise a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion and comprising a muscle scoring table configured to receive user-entered annotations of the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data for a selected anatomical site of Viggen to the graphical user interface disclosed by Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos to allow for the predictable results of allowing the user the ability to adjust the measurements during the procedure, thereby increasing the efficiency of the procedure.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Ota in view of Pagoulatos as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Garson et al. (US 20100168578, hereinafter Garson).
Regarding claim 17, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos does not specifically teach the graphical user interface further comprises a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion and configured to display a muscle scoring data structure adapted to receive clinical finding data corresponding to both the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data.
However,
Garson in a similar field of ultrasound imaging teaches a graphical user interface further comprises a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion ([0061] and fig. 5 disclose displaying report section 402 (third display portion) concurrently with the ultrasound data 403 (second display portion) and ECG data 406 (first display portion) and configured to display a muscle scoring data structure adapted to receive clinical finding data corresponding to both the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data ([0061] and fig. 5, the diagnostic conclusions shown in section 402 are considered the muscle scoring data structure that correspond to both echo (ultrasound) and ECG (electrophysiological) data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphical user interface of Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos to comprise a third display portion displayed concurrently with the first display portion and the second display portion and configured to display a muscle scoring data structure adapted to receive clinical finding data corresponding to both the electrophysiological data and the ultrasound image data in order to yield a more powerful tool for diagnosis, as recognized by Garson ([0062]).
Regarding claim 18, Stuebe in view of Ota, Pagoulatos and Garson teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, as set forth above. Garson further teaches the muscle scoring data structure is a table configured to display separate columns for first findings related to the electrophysiological data and second findings related to the ultrasound imaging data for each of a plurality of anatomical muscle sites (fig. 5 shows the muscle scoring data structure section 402 is a table with a column for ECG (electrophysiological) data and a second column for echo (ultrasound) data).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the graphical user interface of Stuebe in view of Ota, Pagoulatos, and Garson to the muscle scoring data structure be a table configured to display separate columns for first findings related to the electrophysiological data and second findings related to the ultrasound imaging data for each of a plurality of anatomical muscle sites in order to yield a more powerful tool for diagnosis, as recognized by Garson ([0062]).
Claim(s) 23 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Azzara (US 20210219947).
Regarding claim 23, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos does not specifically teach automatically detect a needle tip position within an ultrasound image and to overlay motor unit potential data temporarily correlated with the detected needle tip position.
However,
Azzara in a similar field of ultrasound imaging teaches automatically detect a needle tip position within an ultrasound image using a processor ([0141] “the three-dimensional image and spatial tracking function may be used to automatically track and register the location of an instrument in space”. [0065] discloses the instrument includes a needle) and to overlay motor unit potential data temporarily correlated with the detected needle tip position ([0108] “the intraoperative ultrasound probe system 10 of the present disclosure may be configured to receive data collected through other modes, for example electromyography (EMG), integrate that data with ultrasound data, and display the combined data on the ultrasound image (e.g., as an additional overlay”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of automatically detect a needle tip position within an ultrasound image and to overlay motor unit potential data temporarily correlated with the detected needle tip position of Azzara to the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos to allow for the predictable results of determining whether procedure is being performed correctly and to minimize the size of display required, thereby making the system smaller and more portable.
Regarding claim 26, Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 1, as set forth above. Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos does not specifically teach overlaying motor unit potential data from the first data stream on an ultrasound image from the second data stream.
However,
Azzara in a similar field of ultrasound imaging teaches overlay motor unit potential data from the first data stream on an ultrasound image from the second data stream ([0108] “the intraoperative ultrasound probe system 10 of the present disclosure may be configured to receive data collected through other modes, for example electromyography (EMG), integrate that data with ultrasound data, and display the combined data on the ultrasound image (e.g., as an additional overlay”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the known technique of overlaying motor unit potential data from the first data stream on an ultrasound image from the second data stream of Azzara to the non-transitory computer-readable medium disclosed by Stuebe in view of Ota and Pagoulatos to allow for the predictable results of minimizing the size of display required, thereby making the system smaller and more portable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW BEGEMAN whose telephone number is (571)272-4744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 8:30-5:00.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at 5712701790. 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.
/ANDREW W BEGEMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights