CTNF 19/265,794 CTNF 94125 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d) or (f) based on an application (Application No. JP2024-113644) filed in Japan on 16 Jul 2024. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10 Jul 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS has been considered by the Examiner. Specification 06-16 AIA Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it exceeds the 150 word limit. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b). 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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. 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. Claims 1 and 6 each recites the limitation “ a probe detection unit that detects a position and posture of an ultrasound probe which transmits and receives an ultrasound wave to and from a target tissue of a subject ”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 and its dependent claims as well as claim 6 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [0049] The controller 48 is configured to include at least one of a general-purpose processor (for example, a CPU or the like) or a dedicated processor (for example, a GPU, an ASIC, an FPGA, or a programmable logic device). The controller 48 may be configured by cooperation between a plurality of processing devices that are present at physically separated positions, instead of being configured by one processing device. The controller 48 controls each unit of the ultrasound diagnostic device 16. In addition, as shown in FIG. 3 , the controller 48 functions as a probe detection unit 50, a notification processing unit 52, the model forming unit 54, and a lesion position detection unit 56 according to the target tissue model display control program stored in the memory 44. [0050] The probe detection unit 50 detects at least one of the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14. In the present embodiment, the probe detection unit 50 analyzes the captured image 22 acquired by the camera 12 to detect the position and posture of the ultrasound probe 14. As described above, the captured image 22 includes the image of the probe detection marker 20 indicating the position and posture of the ultrasound probe 14 (see FIG. 2). The probe detection unit 50 analyzes the image of the probe detection marker 20 in the captured image 22 to detect parameters indicating the position and posture of the ultrasound probe 14. The parameter indicating the position of the ultrasound probe 14 may be, for example, three-dimensional coordinates in a camera coordinate system. The parameter indicating the posture of the ultrasound probe 14 may be a rotation angle about a prescribed axis in the camera coordinate system. In addition, since a known method can be used as a method of detecting the position and posture of the ultrasound probe 14 in the camera coordinate system from the image of the probe detection marker 20 included in the captured image 22, a detailed description thereof will be omitted here. [0052] The probe detection unit 50 may detect at least one of the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14 using a method other than the method of analyzing the captured image 22. For example, a position and posture sensor, such as a magnetic sensor or an acceleration sensor, may be provided in the ultrasound probe 14, and at least one of the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14 in a real space may be detected based on a detection value of the position and posture sensor. For purposes of the examination, examiner will interpret “ probe detection unit ” as a processor configured to analyze a camera captured image of an ultrasound probe detection marker, as disclosed in Fig. 2 and [0050], or configured to detect a detection value of a position and posture sensor on an ultrasound probe, as disclosed in [0052]; or equivalents thereof. Claims 1 and 6 each recites the limitation “ a model forming unit that forms a target tissue model representing a shape of the target tissue, based on volume data which is formed from a received signal based on a reflected wave from the target tissue and represents the target tissue ”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 and its dependent claims as well as claim 6 have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [0049] The controller 48 is configured to include at least one of a general-purpose processor (for example, a CPU or the like) or a dedicated processor (for example, a GPU, an ASIC, an FPGA, or a programmable logic device). The controller 48 may be configured by cooperation between a plurality of processing devices that are present at physically separated positions, instead of being configured by one processing device. The controller 48 controls each unit of the ultrasound diagnostic device 16. In addition, as shown in FIG. 3 , the controller 48 functions as a probe detection unit 50, a notification processing unit 52, the model forming unit 54, and a lesion position detection unit 56 according to the target tissue model display control program stored in the memory 44. [0073] FIG. 11 is a conceptual diagram showing the concept of a process of forming a target tissue model 70 . The probe detection unit 50 forms the target tissue model 70 based on the volume data 46 . Since a known method can be used as a method of forming the target tissue model 70 based on the volume data 46 , a detailed description thereof will be omitted here. However, the model forming unit 54 forms the target tissue model 70 using a technique such as volume rendering or surface rendering. In a case where the volume data 46 has the coordinate information indicating each position, the target tissue model 70 also has position information (coordinates) indicating each position since the target tissue model 70 is formed from the volume data 46 . For purposes of the examination, examiner will interpret “ model forming unit ” as a processor configured to perform a volume or surface rendering of an ultrasound volume data, as disclosed in Fig. 11 and [0073], or equivalents thereof. Claim 3 recites the limitation “ a lesion position detection unit that detects, as a lesion position, a position of the ultrasound probe in a case where a lesion part is found in an ultrasound tomographic image formed by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound wave to and from the subject ”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 3 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [0049] The controller 48 is configured to include at least one of a general-purpose processor (for example, a CPU or the like) or a dedicated processor (for example, a GPU, an ASIC, an FPGA, or a programmable logic device). The controller 48 may be configured by cooperation between a plurality of processing devices that are present at physically separated positions, instead of being configured by one processing device. The controller 48 controls each unit of the ultrasound diagnostic device 16. In addition, as shown in FIG. 3 , the controller 48 functions as a probe detection unit 50, a notification processing unit 52, the model forming unit 54, and a lesion position detection unit 56 according to the target tissue model display control program stored in the memory 44. However, a review of the specification does not appear to disclose a corresponding algorithm for a processor implemented function of “detecting, as a lesion position, a position of the ultrasound probe in a case where a lesion part is found in an ultrasound tomographic image formed by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound wave to and from the subject”. In particular, the specification discloses in [0082] that “the operator may specify the position of the lesion part T in the ultrasound tomographic image 60”, but this is not a processor implementation. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not know the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for performing the claimed function of the “lesion position detection unit”, and the metes and bounds of the claimed invention are unclear. For these reasons, applicant has failed to comply with the written description requirement as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph and to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claim 5 recites the limitation “ a notification processing unit that, in a case where the probe detection unit is not capable of detecting the position or posture of the ultrasound probe, notifies a user that the position or posture of the ultrasound probe is not capable of being detected ”. Since this claim limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 5 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: [0049] The controller 48 is configured to include at least one of a general-purpose processor (for example, a CPU or the like) or a dedicated processor (for example, a GPU, an ASIC, an FPGA, or a programmable logic device). The controller 48 may be configured by cooperation between a plurality of processing devices that are present at physically separated positions, instead of being configured by one processing device. The controller 48 controls each unit of the ultrasound diagnostic device 16. In addition, as shown in FIG. 3 , the controller 48 functions as a probe detection unit 50, a notification processing unit 52, the model forming unit 54, and a lesion position detection unit 56 according to the target tissue model display control program stored in the memory 44. [0069] In a case where the probe detection unit 50 is not capable of detecting the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14 , the notification processing unit 52 notifies the user that the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14 is not capable of being detected. For example, in a case where the image of the probe detection marker 20 is not included in the captured image 22 because an obstacle is interposed between the camera 12 and the probe detection marker 20 , the probe detection unit 50 is not capable of detecting the position and posture of the ultrasound probe 14 . In this case, there is no guarantee that the displayed ultrasound tomographic image 60 conforms to the display rule. Therefore, in this case, the notification processing unit 52 notifies the user that the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14 is not capable of being detected. For example, as shown in FIG. 9 , the notification processing unit 52 displays a message 68 saying “The posture of the probe is not capable of being detected” on the display 38 . Of course, the notification indicating that the position or posture of the ultrasound probe 14 is not capable of being detected is not limited to the message 68 . For example, the notification processing unit 52 may display some indicator on the display 38 or may output voice to perform the notification. For purposes of the examination, examiner will interpret “ notification processing unit ” as a processor configured to display an indicator on a display or output a voice, or any equivalents thereof. If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s) and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure(s), material(s), or act(s) perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (1) amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s) to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (2) stating on the record what the corresponding structure(s), material(s), or act(s), which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. See 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §608.01(o) and §2181. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. 07-31-01 Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “a lesion position detection unit that detects, as a lesion position, a position of the ultrasound probe in a case where a lesion part is found in an ultrasound tomographic image formed by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound wave to and from the subject”. As noted above in the Claim Interpretation, a review of the specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this processor-, or computer-, implemented limitation. In particular, the specification discloses in [0082] that “the operator may specify the position of the lesion part T in the ultrasound tomographic image 60”, but this is not a processor implementation. See MPEP 2161.01.I. Accordingly, one skilled in the art would not know the algorithm (i.e., the necessary steps and/or flowcharts) for performing the claimed function of the “lesion position detection unit” in view of the specification of the instant application. 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim 3 is 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 3 recites the limitation “a lesion position detection unit that detects, as a lesion position, a position of the ultrasound probe in a case where a lesion part is found in an ultrasound tomographic image formed by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound wave to and from the subject”. As noted above in the Claim Interpretation and the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) rejection above, a review of the specification of the instant application does not disclose an algorithm for this computer-implemented limitation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim are unclear in view of this computer-implemented limitation. For the purposes of the examination, the limitation is being given a broadest reasonable interpretation as “a lesion position detection unit that receives a user input of a position of the ultrasound probe as a lesion position in a case where a lesion part is found in an ultrasound tomographic image formed by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound wave to and from the subject. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng et al. (US PG Pub No. 2020/0323512) – hereinafter referred to as Ng – in view of Caluser et al. (US PG Pub No. 2015/0051489) – hereinafter referred to as Caluser . Regarding claim 1, Ng discloses a target tissue model display device (at least Fig. 2-3) comprising: a probe detection unit (Fig. 2: position tracker 210) that detects a position and posture of an ultrasound probe which transmits and receives an ultrasound wave to and from a target tissue of a subject (Fig. 2 and [0041]: ultrasound probe with sensor attached for tracking probe position during a tissue scanning; [0042]: probe position includes position and orientation of the probe in 3D space; [0025]: probe includes transducer array for transmitting ultrasonic waves and receiving echo information); a model forming unit (Fig. 2: lesion location interface 224; [0039]-[0040]) that forms a target tissue model representing the target tissue (Fig. 4 and [0056]: annotations 414 indicating predicted location of a lesion within a tissue region, annotation 426 indicating a region where predicted location of lesion is included); and a display controller (Fig. 2: lesion location interface 224; [0039]-[0040]) that displays, on a display unit, a subject symbol schematically representing an outward shape of the subject (Fig. 4: body mark 424 displaying schema of chest area including breast) and a probe symbol representing the position and posture of the ultrasound probe (Fig. 4: annotation 430; [0056]: annotation 430 indicates a current position of the probe) and that displays the target tissue model to be superimposed on the subject symbol (Fig. 4: annotation 426; [0056]: annotation 426 indicating a region where predicted location of lesion is located). Ng does not explicitly disclose: the target tissue model representing the shape of the target tissue, based on volume data which is formed from a received signal based on a reflected wave from the target tissue and represents the target tissue. In the same field of ultrasound image display, Caluser, however, teaches: a target tissue model representing a shape of the target tissue, based on volume data which is formed from a received signal based on a reflected wave from the target tissue and represents the target tissue ([0127]: a 3D graphic display of breast, a previously recorded ultrasound image that contains the target of interest T is displayed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ng’s device to include Caluser’s formation of a target tissue model based on a previous ultrasound volume data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., forming a 3D graphic display based on previously acquired ultrasound image of the target, as disclosed by Caluser), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Ng and Caluser are directed to displaying ultrasound images. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide a precise visual aid to the sonographer of the target location and orientation ([0125]-[0127] of Caluser). Regarding claim 2, Ng in view of Caluser discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Ng further discloses: wherein the target tissue model is a three-dimensional model in which the shape of the target tissue is represented in three dimensions ([0056]: annotation 410 shown in ellipsoid (a 3D shape)). Regarding claim 3, Ng in view of Caluser discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Ng further discloses: a lesion position detection unit (Fig. 2: lesion location interface 224; [0039]-[0040]) that detects, as a lesion position, a position of the ultrasound probe in a case where a lesion part is found in an ultrasound tomographic image formed by transmitting and receiving the ultrasound wave to and from the subject (Fig. 4 and [0056]: annotation 416 indicates an actual location of a lesion within the region and is added by a clinician via a user input), wherein the display controller (Fig. 2: lesion location interface 224; [0039]-[0040]: graphics of lesion location interface 224 provided on a display) displays a lesion position indicator indicating the lesion position to be superimposed on the subject symbol (Fig. 4 and [0056]: annotation 416 indicates an actual location of a lesion within the region). Regarding claim 6, Ng discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([0006]: non-transitory computer-readable medium including processor-executable instructions) storing a target tissue model display control program causing a computer to function as: a probe detection unit (Fig. 2: position tracker 210) that detects a position and posture of an ultrasound probe which transmits and receives an ultrasound wave to and from a target tissue of a subject (Fig. 2 and [0041]: ultrasound probe with sensor attached for tracking probe position during a tissue scanning; [0042]: probe position includes position and orientation of the probe in 3D space; [0025]: probe includes transducer array for transmitting ultrasonic waves and receiving echo information); a model forming unit (Fig. 2: lesion location interface 224; [0039]-[0040]) that forms a target tissue model representing the target tissue (Fig. 4 and [0056]: annotations 414 indicating predicted location of a lesion within a tissue region, annotation 426 indicating a region where predicted location of lesion is included); and a display controller (Fig. 2: lesion location interface 224; [0039]-[0040]) that displays, on a display unit, a subject symbol schematically representing an outward shape of the subject (Fig. 4: body mark 424 displaying schema of chest area including breast) and a probe symbol representing the position and posture of the ultrasound probe (Fig. 4: annotation 430; [0056]: annotation 430 indicates a current position of the probe) and that displays the target tissue model to be superimposed on the subject symbol (Fig. 4: annotation 426; [0056]: annotation 426 indicating a region where predicted location of lesion is located). Ng does not explicitly disclose: the target tissue model representing the shape of the target tissue, based on volume data which is formed from a received signal based on a reflected wave from the target tissue and represents the target tissue. In the same field of ultrasound image display, Caluser, however, teaches: a target tissue model representing a shape of the target tissue, based on volume data which is formed from a received signal based on a reflected wave from the target tissue and represents the target tissue ([0127]: a 3D graphic display of breast, a previously recorded ultrasound image that contains the target of interest T is displayed). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ng’s product to include Caluser’s formation of a target tissue model based on a previous ultrasound volume data. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., forming a 3D graphic display based on previously acquired ultrasound image of the target, as disclosed by Caluser), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Ng and Caluser are directed to displaying ultrasound images. The motivation for the combination would have been to provide a precise visual aid to the sonographer of the target location and orientation ([0125]-[0127] of Caluser) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Caluser , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ryu et al. (US PG Pub No. 2017/0215842) – hereinafter referred to as Ryu . Regarding claim 4, Ng in view of Caluser discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Ng does not disclose: a camera that images the subject and the ultrasound probe, wherein the display controller displays an image captured by the camera as the subject symbol and the probe symbol on the display unit. In the same field of tracking an ultrasound probe, Ryu, however, teaches: a camera (Fig. 7: photographic unit 640; [0111]: photographic unit 460 is a digital camera) that images the subject and the ultrasound probe ([0124]: photographic unit 640 photographs probe 310 and the object), and displaying an image captured by the camera as the subject symbol and the probe symbol on the display unit (Fig. 7 and [0126]: display unit 340 displays location 631 of probe on image 635 representing the object). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ng’s device to include Ryu’s camera and display of the camera captured image. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., using a camera to track the ultrasound probe, as disclosed by Ryu), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Ng and Ryu are directed to tracking an ultrasound probe. The motivation for the combination would have been to “detect an area corresponding to the probe 310 and an area corresponding to the object from an image obtained by photographing the probe 310 and the object”, as taught by Ryu ([0124]) . 07-22-aia AIA Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ng in view of Caluser , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Toma et al. (US PG Pub No. 2016/0270757) – hereinafter referred to as Toma . Regarding claim 5, Ng in view of Caluser discloses all limitations of claim 1, as discussed above, and Ng does not disclose: a notification processing unit that, in a case where the probe detection unit is not capable of detecting the position or posture of the ultrasound probe, notifies a user that the position or posture of the ultrasound probe is not capable of being detected. In the same field of tracking an ultrasound probe, Toma, however, teaches: a notification processing unit ([0188]: display control unit 107) that, in a case where a probe detection unit ([0188]: position acquisition unit 102) is not capable of detecting the position or posture of the ultrasound probe, notifies a user that the position or posture of the ultrasound probe is not capable of being detected (Fig. 19C and [0192]-[0193]: a red circular symbol 91 indicating that the position information is not acquired is displayed as the warning information). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ng’s device to include Toma’s notification notifying when the ultrasound probe position cannot be detected. One of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the elements as claimed by known methods (i.e., displaying a warning information with respect to detection of ultrasound probe position, as disclosed by Toma), and the combination would have yielded a reasonable expectation of success since both Ng and Toma are directed to tracking an ultrasound probe. The motivation for the combination would have been “to display warning information indicating that the position information is not acquired”, as taught by Toma ([0189]) . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kimoto et al. (US PG Pub No. 2013/0018263) discloses displaying an ultrasound probe position relative to a subject (at least Fig. 8); Hyun et al. (US PG Pub No. 2023/0062672) discloses displaying an ultrasound probe position relative to a subject (at least Fig. 3); and Higuchi et al. (JP2017225850A, a copy of machine translation relied upon attached to this Office action) discloses displaying an ultrasound probe position relative to a subject (at least Fig. 24). Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Younhee Choi whose telephone number is (571)272-7013. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-5PM 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, Anhtuan Nguyen can be reached at 571-272-4963. 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. /Y.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3797 /ANHTUAN T NGUYEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3795 6/15/26 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 2 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 3 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 4 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 5 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 6 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 7 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 8 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 9 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 10 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 11 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 12 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 13 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 14 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 15 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 16 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 17 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 18 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 19 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 20 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 21 Art Unit: 3797 Application/Control Number: 19/265,794 Page 22 Art Unit: 3797
