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
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
a three-dimensional model acquisition unit that acquires a three-dimensional model of a target tissue in claims 1 and 12;
a cross section conversion unit that converts an ultrasound scanning plane including the target tissue into a model space cross section in claims 1 and 12;
a target tissue region specifying unit that specifies a target tissue region … by cutting out the three- dimensional model along the model space cross section in claims 1 and 12;
a display control unit that displays an ultrasound tomographic image … in claims 1-6 and 12;
a color Doppler processing unit that forms a color Doppler image … in claims 7-10; and
an image quality adjustment unit that adjusts an image quality of the ultrasound tomographic image … in claim 11.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bashir et al. WO 2024042468 A1 (“Bashir”).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Bashir discloses an ultrasound diagnosis support apparatus (Fig. 1) or non-transitory computer readable storage medium ([0049]) that stores an ultrasound diagnostic support program for causing a computer to function as:
a three-dimensional model acquisition unit that acquires a three-dimensional model of a target tissue, which is formed based on medical volume data acquired by a medical device ([0065-0066] – preoperative images are received by image processing device 56, which may be provided by any other computing devices, [0068] - the 3D model may be generated by another computing device, a communication interface between image processing device 56 and another computing device is an inherent feature as the model has to be received/acquired; this is taken as an equivalent thereof acquisition model discussed in [0033] of instant specification as filed, and Fig. 3, “communication interface 30”);
a cross section conversion unit that converts an ultrasound scanning plane including the target tissue into a model space cross section, which is a cross section in a model space of the three-dimensional model, based on position and orientation information indicating a current position and orientation of an ultrasound probe that performs ultrasound scanning in the ultrasound scanning plane ([0078] “After the ultrasound probe 70 is localized, the ultrasound probe 70 is used to obtain ultrasound images of the tissue” – localized ultrasound probe includes position and orientation; [0079] “…image processing device 56 is also configured to construct a 3D ultrasound volume from the segmented ultrasound images”; [0086] “… the image processing device 56 registers the constructed ultrasound volume with the 3D model …” – i.e., the image processing device comprise a module that performs the entirety of this function as noted above, this is taken as an equivalent thereof cross section conversion unit discussed in [0032] and [0049] of instant specification as filed.
a target tissue region specifying unit that specifies a target tissue region, which is a region occupied by the target tissue in the ultrasound scanning plane, by cutting out the three- dimensional model along the model space cross section ([0014] the image processing model is configured to transfer a slice of the 3D model to a corresponding 2D ultrasound image, [0086] regarding the image processing device 56 registering ultrasound image with 3D model that involves transferring preoperative image or model slices to intraoperative image slices, note [0087] prior to registering landmarks are identified, i.e., target tissue is specified, as such the image processing module 56 comprises a module that performs this function and is taken as an equivalent thereof target tissue region specifying unit described in [0057] of the specification as filed); and
a display control unit that displays an ultrasound tomographic image, which is formed based on a reception signal obtained by transmitting and receiving an ultrasonic wave to and from the target tissue at the current position and orientation of the ultrasound probe, on a display unit and that displays the target tissue region in a superimposed manner on the ultrasound tomographic image ([0079],[0089]).
Regarding claim 4, see [0079], regarding segmented landmarks are displayed as different colored overlays (i.e. different aspects).
Regarding claim 5, see [0090] regarding overlay to identify margins of tissue of interest e.g. tumor “T” in an organ “O” which are attribute information regarding target tissue.
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.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mory et al. US 20220005258 A1 (“Mory”).
Regarding claims 2-3, Bashir does not explicitly disclose the limitations in claims 2-4. However, Mory discloses a display control unit that changes aspect of a target region in response to an instruction form an examiner ([0028] regarding a user input device configured to receive user inputs for manipulating an image, thus changing a display aspect); the user input can be used to set a desired amount of foreground information or background information ([0045] regarding user control e.g. a slider, by adjusting amount of background or foreground information).
Claims 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bashir as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tremblay-Darveau et al. US 20230073704 A1 (“Tremblay”).
Regarding claims 7-10, while Bashir discloses wherein the target tissue includes vessels ([0087]), Bashir does not explicitly disclose a color Doppler processing unit. However, Tremblay discloses an improved technique of rendering blood vessels ([0003-0004]) by use of a color Doppler processing unit (160 – Fig. 1), while maintaining quantitative information provided by color Doppler ([0016]). The color Doppler processing unit forms a color Doppler image based on the specified tissue target (i.e., vessel) and set a color Doppler region of interest based on the target tissue region and set a color Doppler velocity range based on the target tissue corresponding to the target region ([0026], [0028], [0048], [0060]).
In view of these teachings, at the time of filing the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified Bashir to include a color Doppler processing unit to render the vessels in Bashir, while maintaining quantitative information provided by color Doppler as taught by Tremblay.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The prior art fails to reasonable disclose or render obvious the combination of features recited in claim 6, specifically the combination of specifying a registration target as specified in the claim, and the display control unit displaying the images as specified, before conversion processing is performed by the cross section conversion unit.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BONIFACE N NGANGA whose telephone number is (571)270-7393. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Thurs. 5:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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.
/BONIFACE N NGANGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
