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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-18 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.
Claims are directed to “non-3D scanning”. It is not clear if the “non-3D scanning” includes “4D scanning” and/or “2D scanning”. Upon reviewing the specification, the “non-3D scanning” does not include 4D scanning and the probe is configured to be switchable from 2D mode to 3D mode. “It is to be noted that the non-3D scanning does not include 4D scanning by a mechanical 4D probe, etc. The ultrasound probe 1 is configured to be suitably switchable from one of the 2D mode and the 3D mode to the other mode. It is to be noted that the 3D scanning is an example of first scanning. It is also to be noted that the non-3D scanning is an example of second scanning” [0029]. Therefore, it is not clear from the claim language what are types of “non-3D” scans that are encompassed by the claims. It is suggested clarify what is meant by “non-3D” with respect to being “2D” or “4D” or otherwise.
The dependent claims do not provide additional clarity and therefore stand rejected.
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) 1-10 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Anzengruber et al. (2025/0032086) in view of Gérard et al. (2022/0262044) and further in view of Narukiyo et al. (2022/0366537).
With respect to claims 1 and 18, Anzengruber et al. teach of an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 100 and non-transitory computer readable storage medium with instructions comprising processing circuitry configured to generate a first ultrasound image of a subject with a probe 104 has been inserted to generate a non-3D scanning of the subject or a two-dimensional ultrasound scanning [0034]. Anzengruber et al. teach of generating a second ultrasound image with probe 104 where the processing circuitry 132 is configured to switch from the 2D-scanning or non-3D scanning to execute the 3D scanning during image displaying by display system 134 in the 2D scanning where the probe 104 identifies a right endometrial plane via 2D scanning prior to initiating a 3D ultrasound image acquisition or switching from 2D to 3D scanning [0034, 0063].
Anzengruber et al. teach of switching from 2D scanning in the first ultrasound image to 3D scanning in the second ultrasound image with the probe 104 but do not explicitly teach of images to represent the tool or probe on the image datasets. In a similar field of endeavor Gérard et al. teach of a system and method of tracking probe position from 2D ultrasound image dataset to 3D ultrasound image dataset with the location of markers [0013]. Gérard et al. teach of the probe position feedback processor 170 to receive input information and modify the probe position as needed [0029, 0035]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Gérard et al. to modify Anzengruber et al. to more effectively guide an ultrasound operator in manipulating a probe to a position to acquire the ultrasound image datasets with respect to the markers [Gérard et al., 0013].
Anzengruber et al. teach of the processor 132 being configured to receive a probe direction [0047, 0065] but do not explicitly teach of the angle of the ultrasound scanning surface. In a related field of endeavor Narukiyo et al. teach of an image processing apparatus and method where a three dimensional ultrasonic image is acquired using an ultrasonic probe and the processing apparatus also acquires information on the rotation angle of a scanning surface of an ultrasonic probe when the input image was captured and therefore determines the orientation of the target object in the input image based on the acquired input image and the information [0028, 0035, 0036, 0050]. Narukiyo et al. teach of outputting the probe angle on display as the user manipulates the position of the end portion of the probe 503 and the probe angle in the region of interest [0050]. Therefore, the combination of references would result in generating a first ultrasound image through 2D scanning containing the probe, switching to 3D scanning where the display would include the probe direction and more specifically the angle of the scanning surface of the probe. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Narukiyo et al. to modify Anzengruber et al. to improve the accuracy to estimate the standard plane and reduce the operation amount in the standard plane estimating processing in an image [Narukiyo, 0111].
With respect to claim 2, Anzengruber et al. in view of Gérard et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of the diagnostic apparatus to comprise a first input interface [Anzengruber et al., 0033] configured to receive an input, an execution instruction to execute the 3D scanning, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute the 3D scanning based on the execution instruction [0034, 0037, 0038].
With respect to claim 3, Anzengruber et al. in view of Gérard et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of the 3D scanning to be executed for a single volume 3D ultrasound acquisition corresponds to the 2D image of the endometrial plane [0034].
With respect to claim 4, Anzengruber et al. in view of Gérard et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of an ultrasound probe to image the endometrial plane and therefore is an endocavity ultrasound probe [0034, 0073].
With respect to claims 5-7, Anzengruber et al. in view of Gérard et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of the processing circuitry to be configured to update position information of the ultrasound probe where the angle of the second scanning surface or the scan face may be rotated and therefore may be different from the angle of the first scanning surface [0050, 0061, 0063]. Anzengruber et al. teach of changing an angle of a scanning surface from the angle of the second scanning surface to the angle of the first scanning surface [0050, 0101]. Anzengruber et al. teach of the executing the 2D scanning via the probe whose position information has been updated to the angle of the first scanning surface with respect to the relationship between the probe angle and the standard plane to be the observation surface [0063-0065].
With respect to claims 8 and 9, Anzengruber et al. in view of Gérard et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of the display 134 being configured to display the first ultrasound image or 2D image containing the medical tool or the probe orientation markers on display [0055]. Anzengruber et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of the display screen to display the first and second ultrasound image in parallel [0016, 0038, 0039, 0042, 0043, fig. 5-7].
With respect to claim 10, Anzengruber et al. in view of Gérard et al. in view of Narukiyo et al. teach of applying the probe orientation information by the signal processor to present labels to the ultrasound image views presented at the display system to provide information to the operator or communicating visual information to a user including probe orientation markers [0049] or notifying the user of the angle of the scanning surface or the probe angle [0065]. Gérard et al. teach of the probe position feedback processor 170 to receive input information and modify the probe position as needed [0029, 0035]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Gérard et al. to modify Anzengruber et al. to more effectively guide an ultrasound operator in manipulating a probe to a position to acquire the ultrasound image datasets with respect to the markers [Gérard et al., 0013].
With respect to claims 15-17, Anzengruber et al. do not explicitly teach of the processing circuitry being configured to detect whether or not the medical tool is contained by the first ultrasound image. Gérard et al. teach of the probe position feedback processor 170 to receive input information and modify the probe position as needed [0029, 0035]. Gérard et al. teach of switching to 3D image dataset from 2D image dataset based on marker location feedback from the 2D image dataset [0036]. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, Gérard et al. teach of switching to 3D image dataset based on feedback to the operator or based on notification to the operator with respect to the first image dataset. Gérard et al. teach of the feedback processor being configured to provide probe position feedback based on the location of the markers in the image dataset in the form of visual indicator or audio feedback or physical feedback to notify operator and continuously update the probe position feedback until the probe is correctly positioned [0039, 0041]. Gérard et al. teach of the probe position feedback processor to provide an indication as to whether the second mode of ultrasound image dataset is obtainable such that the operator is aware whether probe manipulation is needed prior to switching to second mode which would show the correct probe position [0051, 0052]. It would have therefore been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the teaching by Gérard et al. to modify Anzengruber et al. to more effectively guide an ultrasound operator in manipulating a probe to a position to acquire the ultrasound image datasets with respect to the markers [Gérard et al., 0013].
Comments
Claims 11-14 only stand rejected under 112(b).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BAISAKHI ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-7139. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-3 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, Christopher Koharski can be reached at 571-272-7230. 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.
BR
/BAISAKHI ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights