DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to original claims filed on 05/15/2025. Presently, Claims 1 - 7 remain 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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, Lines 2-3, recite “… to execute: acquire …”, in which “execute” should be deleted.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1 - 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
With regard to Claims 1-7:
Step 1: the claims are drawn to a device/apparatus, one of the four statutory categories.
Step 2A, Prong One:
The claims recite the limitations of “apply a transformation …”, “continuously extract a signal component …”, and “output third ultrasonic data, based on …” in Claim 1, “the parameter is frequency” in Claim 2, “the transformation is Fourier transformation” in Claim 3, “expanding … with an orthogonal base” in Claim 4, “acquire … ultrasonic data … based on …”, “apply a transformation …”, “continuously extract a signal component …”, and “output third ultrasonic data, based on …” in Claims 6-7, which are, under their broadest reasonable interpretation, limitations that cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by mathematical calculations. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind or by mathematical calculations but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” or “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong Two:
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claims recite the additional elements – a processing circuit in Claims 1 and 6, extracting signal component from an object such as blood, tissue or a contrast medium in Claim 5, performing an ultrasonic scan in Claim 6, and non-transitory computer readable medium in Claim 7. The processing circuit and the computer readable medium are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Performing ultrasound scan and extracting signal components are insignificant extra-solution activities. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claims are directed to an abstract idea.
Step 2B:
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a processing circuit and computer-readable medium, as clamed, to perform the processing steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept.
For the reasons set forth above, Claims 1-7 are not patent eligible.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al (US 20200178939 A1; hereafter Song), in view of Trzasko et al (US 20220240899 A1; hereafter Trzasko).
With regard to Claim 1, Song discloses a medical information processing device (Song, Para 0030, “Described here are systems and methods for super-resolution ultrasound imaging of microvessels in a subject.”) comprising a processing circuit (Song, Para 0100; “…a processing unit, which may be implemented by a hardware processor …”) configured to:
acquire a plurality of pieces of first ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0040; “… after tissue motions are removed from the ultrasound data, microbubble signals are isolated in the ultrasound data, as indicated at step 106.”) obtained based on a result of an ultrasonic scan of a subject (Song, Para 0030; “Ultrasound data are acquired from a region-of-interest in a subject …”);
continuously extract a signal component representing an object (Song, Para 0057; “… after the microbubbles are localized, their locations are accumulated and tracked, as indicated at step 112.”; Para 0058; “The original microbubble signal in frame n 704 is tracked in frames n+1, n+2, n+3, and n+4, as indicated by dashed circles 706. The true microbubble movement trajectory is indicated by 708”; the disclosed microbubble signals are extracted from the frames n, n+1, n+2, n+3 and n+4, without gap in image frames) from the pieces of second ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0046; “… the axial-temporal microbubble signal data …, while in other implementations lateral-temporal data or full axial-lateral-temporal 3D data …”); and
output third ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0087; “… after processing, the microvessel images can be displayed to a user or stored for later use, such as for later analysis, as indicated at step 118”), based on the continuously extracted signal component representing the object (Song, Para 0069; “…the microvessel image can include an accumulated microbubble location map throughout all of the acquisition frames.”).
Song does not clearly and explicitly disclose applying a transformation to the pieces of first ultrasonic data to generate a plurality of pieces of second ultrasonic data characterized by a parameter other than time.
Trzasko in the same field of endeavor discloses applying a transformation (Trzasko, Para 0065; “… a Fourier transform can be used to calculate the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal …”) to the pieces of first ultrasonic data to generate a plurality of pieces of second ultrasonic data (Trzasko, Para 0065; “the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal”) characterized by a parameter other than time (frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song, as suggested by Trzasko, in order to transform the ultrasonic data into a form characterized by a parameter other than time, such as frequency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of easily separating the ultrasonic signals in a domain different from time, so that super-resolution imaging can be more reliably achieved (Trzasko, Para 0004; “one major challenge of super-resolution imaging is inadequate microbubble separation. … When microbubbles are too close to each other, their echo signals overlap and interfere, which makes the localization of individual microbubbles inaccurate or even impossible”).
With regard to Claim 2, Song and Trzasko disclose the medical information processing device according to Claim 1, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the parameter is frequency.
Trzasko further discloses wherein the parameter is frequency (Trzasko, Para 0065; “… a Fourier transform can be used to calculate the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song and Trzasko, as further suggested by Trzasko, in order to transform the ultrasonic data into a frequency domain. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of easily separating out the ultrasonic signals (Trzasko, Para 0010; “FIG. 4 is an example of a frequency spectrum, which can be used to separate microbubble signal data into subsets of data.”).
With regard to Claim 3, Song and Trzasko disclose the medical information processing device according to Claim 1, but do not explicitly and clearly disclose wherein the transformation is Fourier transformation.
Trzasko further discloses wherein the transformation is Fourier transformation (Trzasko, Para 0065; “… a Fourier transform can be used to calculate the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal …”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song and Trzasko, as further suggested by Trzasko, in order to use Fourier transformation to transform the ultrasonic data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of Fourier transform being the most popular and reliable method for obtaining frequency spectrum.
With regard to Claim 4, Song and Trzasko disclose the medical information processing device according to Claim 1. Song further discloses wherein the processing circuit is configured to generate the pieces of second ultrasonic data by expanding the pieces of first ultrasonic data with an orthogonal base to obtain an expansion coefficient (Song, Para 0040; “… the microbubble signals can be isolated using … a singular value decomposition (“SVD”)-based filtering, and so on.” Here the disclosed SVD method is an expansion for the image data, with the singular vectors as the orthogonal base and the singular values as expansion coefficient).
With regard to Claim 5, Song and Trzasko disclose the medical information processing device according to Claim 1. Song further discloses wherein the object includes at least one of blood, an in-body tissue, and a contrast medium (Song, Para 0057; “… after the microbubbles are localized, their locations are accumulated and tracked …”).
With regard to Claim 6, Song discloses an ultrasonic diagnosis device (Song, Para 0030, “Described here are systems and methods for super-resolution ultrasound imaging of microvessels in a subject.”) comprising a processing circuit (Song, Para 0100; “…a processing unit, which may be implemented by a hardware processor …”) configured to:
cause an ultrasonic probe to perform an ultrasonic scan of a subject (Song, Para 0030; “Ultrasound data are acquired from a region-of-interest in a subject …”);
acquire a plurality of pieces of first ultrasonic data based on a result of the ultrasonic scan (Song, Para 0040; “… after tissue motions are removed from the ultrasound data, microbubble signals are isolated in the ultrasound data, as indicated at step 106.”);
continuously extract a signal component representing an object (Song, Para 0057; “… after the microbubbles are localized, their locations are accumulated and tracked, as indicated at step 112.”; Para 0058; “The original microbubble signal in frame n 704 is tracked in frames n+1, n+2, n+3, and n+4, as indicated by dashed circles 706. The true microbubble movement trajectory is indicated by 708”; the disclosed microbubble signals are extracted from the frames n, n+1, n+2, n+3 and n+4, without gap in image frames) from the pieces of second ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0046; “… the axial-temporal microbubble signal data …, while in other implementations lateral-temporal data or full axial-lateral-temporal 3D data …”); and
output third ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0087; “… after processing, the microvessel images can be displayed to a user or stored for later use, such as for later analysis, as indicated at step 118”), based on the continuously extracted signal component representing the object (Song, Para 0069; “…the microvessel image can include an accumulated microbubble location map throughout all of the acquisition frames.”).
Song does not clearly and explicitly disclose applying a transformation to the pieces of first ultrasonic data to generate a plurality of pieces of second ultrasonic data characterized by a parameter other than time.
Trzasko in the same field of endeavor discloses applying a transformation (Trzasko, Para 0065; “… a Fourier transform can be used to calculate the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal …”) to the pieces of first ultrasonic data to generate a plurality of pieces of second ultrasonic data (Trzasko, Para 0065; “the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal”) characterized by a parameter other than time (frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song, as suggested by Trzasko, in order to transform the ultrasonic data into a form characterized by a parameter other than time, such as frequency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of easily separating the ultrasonic signals in a domain different from time, so that super-resolution imaging can be more reliably achieved (Trzasko, Para 0004; “one major challenge of super-resolution imaging is inadequate microbubble separation. … When microbubbles are too close to each other, their echo signals overlap and interfere, which makes the localization of individual microbubbles inaccurate or even impossible”).
With regard to Claim 7, Song discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions that cause a computer to execute (Song, Para 0032; “The method includes providing ultrasound data to a computer system, as indicated at step 102 …”. The disclosed “computer system” intrinsically comprise computer readable medium that stores programs for the disclosed data processing):
acquire a plurality of pieces of first ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0040; “… after tissue motions are removed from the ultrasound data, microbubble signals are isolated in the ultrasound data, as indicated at step 106.”) obtained based on a result of an ultrasonic scan of a subject (Song, Para 0030; “Ultrasound data are acquired from a region-of-interest in a subject …”);
continuously extract a signal component representing an object (Song, Para 0057; “… after the microbubbles are localized, their locations are accumulated and tracked, as indicated at step 112.”; Para 0058; “The original microbubble signal in frame n 704 is tracked in frames n+1, n+2, n+3, and n+4, as indicated by dashed circles 706. The true microbubble movement trajectory is indicated by 708”; the disclosed microbubble signals are extracted from the frames n, n+1, n+2, n+3 and n+4, without gap in image frames) from the pieces of second ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0046; “… the axial-temporal microbubble signal data …, while in other implementations lateral-temporal data or full axial-lateral-temporal 3D data …”); and
output third ultrasonic data (Song, Para 0087; “… after processing, the microvessel images can be displayed to a user or stored for later use, such as for later analysis, as indicated at step 118”), based on the continuously extracted signal component representing the object (Song, Para 0069; “…the microvessel image can include an accumulated microbubble location map throughout all of the acquisition frames.”).
Song does not clearly and explicitly disclose applying a transformation to the pieces of first ultrasonic data to generate a plurality of pieces of second ultrasonic data characterized by a parameter other than time.
Trzasko in the same field of endeavor discloses applying a transformation (Trzasko, Para 0065; “… a Fourier transform can be used to calculate the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal …”) to the pieces of first ultrasonic data to generate a plurality of pieces of second ultrasonic data (Trzasko, Para 0065; “the frequency spectrum along the temporal direction of the microbubble signal”) characterized by a parameter other than time (frequency). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Song, as suggested by Trzasko, in order to transform the ultrasonic data into a form characterized by a parameter other than time, such as frequency. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make the modification for the benefit of easily separating the ultrasonic signals in a domain different from time, so that super-resolution imaging can be more reliably achieved (Trzasko, Para 0004; “one major challenge of super-resolution imaging is inadequate microbubble separation. … When microbubbles are too close to each other, their echo signals overlap and interfere, which makes the localization of individual microbubbles inaccurate or even impossible”).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEI ZHANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7172. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm E.T..
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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached at (571) 272-2714. 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.
/L.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/PASCAL M BUI PHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights