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
Claims 1-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: independent claims 1 and 14 should have a colon after the term “comprising” to clearly denote the end of the preamble and provide “processing circuitry configured:” with the added colon on the next line. See claim 15 for proper formatting.
Claim 1 should state “the motion of the subject” in line 7 to provide consistency with line 6.
Claim 1 should state “the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in line 9 to provide consistency with line 3.
Claim 1 should state “the selected plurality of sets of frame data” in lines 10-11 to provide consistency with lines 6-7.
Claim 2 should state “the plurality of sets of frame data” in line 3 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 4 should state “the plurality of sets of frame data” in lines 4 and 6-7 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 6 should state “the plurality of sets of frame data” in lines 4 and 5 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 7 should state “in the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in line 4 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 8 should state “in the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in lines 3 and 4 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 9 should state “in the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in lines 3 and 4 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 10 should state “in the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in lines 4-5 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 12 should state “in the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in lines 5-6 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 13 should state “in the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in line 6 to provide consistency with claim 1.
Claim 14 should state “the motion of the subject” in line 8 to provide consistency with line 7.
Claim 14 should state “the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in line 10 to provide consistency with line 4.
Claim 14 should state “the selected plurality of sets of frame data” in lines 11-12 to provide consistency with lines 8-9.
Claim 15 should state “the motion of the subject” in line 6 to provide consistency with line 5.
Claim 15 should state “the plurality of sets of ultrasonic data” in line 8 to provide consistency with line 2.
Claim 15 should state “the selected plurality of sets of frame data” in lines 9-10 to provide consistency with lines 6-7.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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.
Claim 1 states “subjects” in line 8. It is unclear as to whether “subjects” includes “a subject” as set forth in line 4 or if they are different subjects.
The term “high resolution” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “high resolution” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “high resolution” does not have a set standard in the art and the written description does not provide any upper and lower bounds which line what is considered “high” resolution.
Claim 4 states “a subject” in line 3. It is unclear as to whether this is referring back to “a subject” in line 4 or is one of “subjects” in line 8 of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define an additional subject.
Claim 4 states “perform a synthesizing process” in line 5. It is unclear as to whether the claim is attempting to further define “perform a synthesizing process” of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define a separate and distinct synthesizing process.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the frame data" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 states “the subject” in line 5. It is unclear as to whether this is referring back to “a subject” in line 4 or is one of “subjects” in line 8 of claim 1, “a subject” of claim 4 or if the claim is attempting to define an additional subject.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “detect a motion of the subject”. It is unclear as to whether this is the same “a motion of the subject” as set forth in line 6 of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define a separate motion of the subject.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “detect a motion of the subject”. It is unclear as to whether this is the same “a motion of the subject” as set forth in line 6 of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define a separate motion of the subject.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “detect a motion of the subject” in lines 3 and 6. It is unclear as to whether this is the same “a motion of the subject” as set forth in line 6 of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define a separate motion of the subject.
The term “relatively a few motions” in claim 10 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “relatively a few motions” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term “relatively” is a relative term for which the written description has not provided upper and lower bounds.
Claim 11 states “frame data on a side of a larger number of frames”. It is unclear as to what is meant by “on a side of a larger number”.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the ultrasonic data" in 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 states “a motion of the subject” in line 6. It is unclear as to whether this is the same “a motion of the subject” as set forth in line 6 of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define a separate motion of the subject.
Claim 12 states “a motion of the subject” in line 5. It is unclear as to whether this is the same “a motion of the subject” as set forth in line 6 of claim 1 or if the claim is attempting to define a separate motion of the subject.
Claim 14 states “subjects” in line 9. It is unclear as to whether “subjects” includes “a subject” as set forth in line 5 or if they are different subjects.
Claim 15 states “subjects” in line 7. It is unclear as to whether “subjects” includes “a subject” as set forth in line 3 or if they are different subjects.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7-8 and 10-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Averikou et al (2015/0371379).
Regarding claim 1, Averikou et al disclose a medical information processing apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to
acquire a plurality of sets of ultrasound data representing frames of a subject that are successive in a time direction (temporal sequence of images - [0026]),
detect a motion of the subject (cyclical motion is identified – [0030]),
based on a result of detecting the motion, select a plurality of sets of frame data representing subjects to be synthesized from the sets of ultrasonic data (with the motion cycle thus identified, the images acquired during a desired phase or phase range of the motion are identified – [0030]; step 54 - fig.5), and
perform a synthesizing process on the selected sets of frame data (process images acquired during desired phase - [0030];[0031]; step 56 – fig.5).
Regarding claim 2, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to add the sets of frame data and generates addition data (an image which is an average of all of the image frames; the resulting binary images are added together – [0031]).
Regarding claim 3, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute a process for high resolution of a subject that is presented by the addition data (appendix table – [0035]).
Regarding claim 4, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to extract signal components representing a subject from the sets of frame data, respectively (extract the pixels – [0030]), and perform a synthesizing process of generating integrated data obtained by integrating the signal components in the sets of frame data (an image which is an average of all of the image frames, each frame of the loop is subtracted from the average and pixel intensities are assigned a value, binary images are added together – [0031]).
Regarding claim 5, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to generate filter information corresponding to each position in the frame data based on a result of extracting signal components representing the subject in the sets of frame data, and generate the integrated data using the filter information (separated signals are filtered – [0022]; filter 30 prior to image processor 36 – fig.1).
Regarding claim 7, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to calculate an image quality evaluation index of each frame in the sets of ultrasonic data and, based on the image quality evaluation index, detect a motion of the subject (qualitative presentation - [0024]).
Regarding claim 8, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to perform main component analysis on each frame in the sets of ultrasonic data and, based on a result of the analysis, detect a motion of the subject (frequency components - [0021]-[0022]).
Regarding claim 10, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select a plurality of sets of frame data with relatively a few motions of the subject from the sets of ultrasonic data as frame data representing frames that are the subjects to be synthesized (cyclical motion is identified – [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select, as the frame data representing frames that are the subjects to be synthesized, frame data on a side of a larger number of frames from the ultrasonic data of a set number of frames using a time at which a motion of the subject is detected as a border (the image frames acquired during the same phase range of the motion cycle, which is considered “a larger number of frames” as it is all frames within the same phase range – [0006]).
Regarding claim 12, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select, as the frame data representing frames that are the subjects to be synthesized, frame data that is acquired prior to a time at which a motion of the subject is detected in the sets of ultrasonic data that are acquired over time (one or more motion cycles, images are acquired at each and every phase of a respiratory cycle and heartbeat cycle, any motion cycle can be identified - [0029]; fig.5).
Regarding claim 13, Averikou et al disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to select, as the frame data representing frames that are the subjects to be synthesized, a plurality of sets of frame data having similarity at or above a reference between the frames represented by the sets of ultrasonic data (the cyclical motion is identified – [0030]).
Regarding claim 14, Averikou et al disclose an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to
cause an ultrasonic probe to execute ultrasonic scanning, acquire a plurality of sets of ultrasound data representing frames of a subject that are successive in a time direction (temporal sequence of images - [0026]),
detect a motion of the subject (cyclical motion is identified – [0030]),
based on a result of detecting the motion, select a plurality of sets of frame data representing subjects to be synthesized from the sets of ultrasonic data (with the motion cycle thus identified, the images acquired during a desired phase or phase range of the motion are identified – [0030]; step 54 - fig.5), and
perform a synthesizing process on the selected sets of frame data (process images acquired during desired phase - [0030];[0031]; step 56 – fig.5).
Regarding claim 15, Averikou et al disclose a medical information processing method comprising:
acquiring a plurality of sets of ultrasound data representing frames of a subject that are successive in a time direction (temporal sequence of images - [0026]),
detecting a motion of the subject (cyclical motion is identified – [0030]),
based on a result of detecting the motion, select a plurality of sets of frame data representing subjects to be synthesized from the sets of ultrasonic data (with the motion cycle thus identified, the images acquired during a desired phase or phase range of the motion are identified – [0030]; step 54 - fig.5), and
performing a synthesizing process on the selected sets of frame data (process images acquired during desired phase - [0030];[0031]; step 56 – fig.5).
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Averikou et al (2015/0371379) in view of Errico et al (2021/0113190).
Regarding claims 6 and 9, Averikou et al disclose the invention substantially as claimed, but fail to explicitly disclose wherein the processing circuitry is configured to execute enhancing process of enhancing process of enhancing a subject on each of the sets of frame data, and add the sets of frame data after the enhancing process and generate addition data, detect a motion of the subject by inputting each frame in the set of ultrasonic data to a trained model that is trained using a data set including ultrasonic data for training and information on presence or absence of a motion of a subject in the ultrasonic data for training.
However, Errico et al teach in the same medical field of endeavor, wherein processing circuitry is configured to execute enhancing process of enhancing process of enhancing a subject on each of a sets of frame data, and add the sets of frame data after the enhancing process and generate addition data (enhancement - [0043]-[0045]), and detect a motion of the subject by inputting each frame in a set of ultrasonic data to a trained model that is trained using a data set including ultrasonic data for training and information on presence or absence of a motion of a subject in the ultrasonic data for training (form training data - [0035]-[0037]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the ultrasonic image acquisition and processing of Averikou et al with executing an enhancing process and detect a motion using a trained model of Errico et al as it would provide optimizing the images using deep learning-based training.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROCHELLE DEANNA TURCHEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7104. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 6:30-2:30.
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.
/ROCHELLE D TURCHEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797