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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/14/2025, 12/18/2025, and 07/08/2026 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Although the courts have found that the use of the term “and/or” would not be indefinite, (Employers Mut. Liability Ins. Co. v. Tollefsen, 219 Wis. 434 (1935)), the board did note that the preferred way of writing the claim is through use of “at least one of A and B" in the future. Therefore, the Examiner object to the terms "and/or" in claims 12-13 such that it is written in accordance with the courts preferred way.
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 1-13 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.
For claim 1, the limitation “defining an ultrasound image from the ultrasound image data” is indefinite. It is unclear what is meant by “defining” an image (i.e., generating an image, displaying an image, something else). For the purpose of advancing prosecution, the examiner reads “defining an ultrasound image from the ultrasound image data” as “generating an ultrasound image from the ultrasound image data” for clarity.
Claims 2-13 are dependent of claim 1, and therefore rejected under this 112(b) rejection as well.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 8-16, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,376,817 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the pending claims are an obvious variant of the claim set from the patent only including minor differences in structure.
Claim 1 of the instant invention and claim 1 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites activating ultrasonic transducers of an array of ultrasonic transducers of an ultrasound probe communicatively coupled to the console, whereby the ultrasonic transducers emit generated ultrasound signals into a patient, receive reflected ultrasound signals from the patient, and convert the reflected ultrasound signals into corresponding electrical signals of the reflected ultrasound signals for processing into ultrasound image data and doppler ultrasound data.
Claim 1 of the instant invention and claim 1 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites obtaining ultrasound image data of a predefined target area of the patient; defining an ultrasound image from the ultrasound image data; detecting one or more blood vessels within the ultrasound image; obtaining doppler ultrasound data pertaining to blood flow within the one or more blood vessels; determining a condition of the blood flow based at least partially on doppler ultrasound data; and identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or alternatively as an artery based at least partially on the condition of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels.
Claim 2 of the instant invention and claim 2 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein: determining the condition includes determining a direction of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels based on doppler ultrasound data, the direction determined with respect to an image plane of the ultrasound image, and the method further comprises identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or an artery based at least partially on the direction of the blood flow.
Claim 3 of the instant invention and claim 3 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein determining the condition includes determining a magnitude of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels based on doppler ultrasound data, the method further comprising identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery based at least partially on the magnitude of the blood flow.
Claim 4 of the instant invention and claim 4 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein determining the condition includes determining a pulsatility of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels based on doppler ultrasound data, the method further comprising: comparing the pulsatility with a pulsatility limit stored in memory; and as a result of the comparison, further at least partially identifying the one or more blood vessels (i) as an artery when the pulsatility exceeds the pulsatility limit or (ii) as a vein when the pulsatility is less than the pulsatility limit.
Claim 5 of the instant invention and claim 5 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein: the system is configured to obtain an ECG signal, and the method further comprises determining the pulsatility of the blood flow in coordination with the ECG signal.
Claim 6 of the instant invention and claim 1 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein determining the condition includes determining a pulse timing difference between a blood flow pulse within a first blood vessel and a corresponding blood flow pulse within a second blood vessel based on doppler ultrasound data, the method further comprising identifying at least one of the first blood vessel or the second blood vessel as a vein or as an artery based at least partially on the pulse timing difference.
Claim 7 of the instant invention and claim 6 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites determining a cross-sectional shape of the one or more blood vessels based on ultrasound image data; and further identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or an artery based at least partially on the cross-sectional shape.
Claim 8 of the instant invention and claim 8 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites determining a confidence for the identity of the one or more blood vessels based on one or more of the direction of the blood flow, the magnitude of the blood flow, the pulsatility of the blood flow, the pulse timing difference of the blood flow, or the cross-sectional shape.
Claim 9 of the instant invention and claim 9 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites defining a doppler ultrasound window extending at least partially across the ultrasound image, wherein: the doppler ultrasound window defines a portion of the ultrasound image for obtaining doppler ultrasound data, and the doppler ultrasound window encompasses the one or more blood vessels.
Claim 10 of the instant invention and claim 10 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein defining the doppler ultrasound window includes automatically defining the doppler ultrasound window upon detecting the one or more blood vessels.
Claim 11 of the instant invention and claim 11 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein: defining the doppler ultrasound window includes: receiving an input via an input device of the system; and defining the doppler ultrasound window based on the input, the input including a selected portion of the ultrasound image.
Claim 11 of the instant invention and claim 12 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein the input device includes one or more of a graphical user interface of the display.
Claim 11 of the instant invention and claim 13 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein the input device includes control buttons of the ultrasound probe.
Claim 12 of the instant invention and claim 19 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites portraying the ultrasound image on a display of the system; and superimposing a notification atop the ultrasound image, the notification including the identity of the blood vessel.
Claim 12 of the instant invention and claim 20 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites the notification including the confidence for the identity of the blood vessel.
Claim 13 of the instant invention and claim 14 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites wherein the ultrasound probe further includes an array of magnetic sensors configured to convert magnetic signals from a magnetized medical device into corresponding electrical signals of the magnetic signals for processing by the processor into position and/or orientation information of the magnetized medical device with respect to the predefined target area.
Claim 13 of the instant invention and claim 15 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites superimposing an iconographic representation of the medical device atop the ultrasound image.
Claim 13 of the instant invention and claim 16 of US patent ‘817 similarly recites defining the doppler ultrasound window based on the position and/or orientation of the iconographic representation of the medical device atop the ultrasound image.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 7, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl et al. (US 20210315538 A1, published October 14, 2021) in view of Tadross et al. (US 20200229795 A1, published July 23, 2020), hereinafter referred to as Brandl and Tadross, respectively.
Regarding claim 1, Brandl teaches a method of an ultrasound-imaging system including a non-transitory computer-readable medium ("CRM") having executable logic that causes the ultrasound- imaging system to perform a set of operations for ultrasound imaging when the logic is executed by a processor of a console of the ultrasound-imaging system (Fig. 1-2; see para. 0030 – “The image processor 231 includes a processor 204 configured to execute machine readable instructions stored in non-transitory memory 206.”), the method comprising:
activating ultrasonic transducers of an array of ultrasonic transducers of an ultrasound probe communicatively coupled to the console, whereby the ultrasonic transducers emit generated ultrasound signals into a patient, receive reflected ultrasound signals from the patient, and convert the reflected ultrasound signals into corresponding electrical signals of the reflected ultrasound signals for processing into ultrasound image data and doppler ultrasound data (Fig. 3, “Begin ultrasound scan of vessel” 305; see para. 0043 – “At 305, method 300 begins an ultrasound scan of a vessel. For example, method 300 controls the transmit beamformer 101 and the transmitter 102 to drive the transducer elements 104 of the probe 106 to emit ultrasonic waves into the patient towards the vessel, and further controls the receiver 108 and the receive beamformer 110 to detect, via the transducer elements 104 of the probe 106, the echoes of the ultrasonic waves as described hereinabove.”);
obtaining ultrasound image data of a predefined target area of the patient (Fig. 3, “Begin ultrasound scan of vessel” 305; see para. 0043 – “In this way, at 310, method 300 acquires a B-mode image or grayscale ultrasound image of the vessel.”);
defining an ultrasound image from the ultrasound image data (Fig. 3, “Acquire B-mode image” 310; see para. 0043 – “In this way, at 310, method 300 acquires a B-mode image or grayscale ultrasound image of the vessel.”);
detecting one or more blood vessels within the ultrasound image (Fig. 3, “Receive indication of vessel being imaged” 315; see para. 0044 – “As another example, method 300 may perform image classification of the B-mode image or ultrasound image acquired at 310 to automatically detect the vessel, and so method 300 may receive the indication of the vessel being imaged via the image classification.”);
obtaining doppler ultrasound data pertaining to blood flow within the one or more blood vessels (Fig. 3, “Acquire Doppler measurements” 320; see para. 0045 – “For example, method 300 may automatically identify the position of the vessel being imaged at 315, and automatically position the Doppler cursor at the position of the vessel for Doppler data acquisition.”);
Brandl teaches obtaining doppler ultrasound data to determine blood flow (see para. 0045 – “Furthermore, method 300 may compute various measurements or indices based on the acquired Doppler data. For example, the Doppler measurements may also include calculations of the resistive index (RI) and/or the pulsatility index (PI) from the blood flow velocity data and/or the Doppler spectrum…”), but does not explicitly teach identifying the blood vessels as a vein or an artery based on the determined blood flow.
Whereas, Tadross, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches
determining a condition of the blood flow based at least partially on doppler ultrasound data (Fig. 4; see para. 0054 – “Continuing at 420, method 400 measures the variance in flow velocities or Doppler shifts of the CF image.”); and
identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or alternatively as an artery based at least partially on the condition of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels (Fig. 4; see para. 0055 – “Therefore, at 425, method 400 labels one or more structure(s) in the CF image with high variance or aliasing as an artery. Further, at 430, method 400 labels one or more structure(s) with low variance as a vein.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified obtaining doppler ultrasound data to determine blood flow, as disclosed in Brandl, by also identifying the blood vessels as a vein or an artery based on the determined blood flow, as disclosed in Tadross. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to automatically distinguish an artery form a vein in a color flow image to substantially reduced relative to the amount of time a human operator would take to obtain such accurate and consistent blood flow measurements, as taught in Tadross (see para 0071).
Furthermore, regarding claim 2, Tadross further teaches wherein: determining the condition includes determining a direction of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels based on doppler ultrasound data, the direction determined with respect to an image plane of the ultrasound image, and the method further comprises identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or an artery based at least partially on the direction of the blood flow (Fig. 5; see para. 0047 – “For example, method 300 may distinguish the artery from the vein within the region according to the flow direction of each vessel…”; see para. 0060 – “For example, one vessel may be blue in the CF image whereas the other vessel may be red, thereby indicating opposing flow directions.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 4, Tadross further teaches wherein determining the condition includes determining a pulsatility of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels based on doppler ultrasound data, the method further comprising: comparing the pulsatility with a pulsatility limit stored in memory; and as a result of the comparison, further at least partially identifying the one or more blood vessels (i) as an artery when the pulsatility exceeds the pulsatility limit or (ii) as a vein when the pulsatility is less than the pulsatility limit (Fig. 6; see para. 0065 – “Arteries exhibit pulsatile flow whereas veins do not exhibit pulsatile flow. Therefore, at 625, method 600 labels structure(s) in the CF image with high pulsatility as an artery. At 630, method 600 labels structure(s) in the CF image with low pulsatility or no pulsatility as a vein.” Where storing a threshold value in a memory in order to compare the threshold value to determined values is inherent and known in the art).
Furthermore, regarding claim 7, Tadross further teaches determining a cross-sectional shape of the one or more blood vessels based on ultrasound image data; and further identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or an artery based at least partially on the cross-sectional shape (see para. 0061 – “At 525, method 500 labels the structures as an artery or a vein according to the direction of flow within the structure. To label the structures as an artery or a vein according to the direction of flow, method 500 may segment the structures into different segments, and may identify the segments as the artery or vein using the vessel segment search (e.g., according to the vessel diameter, vessel area, uniformity of vessel diameter, or a combination of such measures as discussed hereinabove).”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 9, Brandl further teaches defining a doppler ultrasound window extending at least partially across the ultrasound image, wherein: the doppler ultrasound window defines a portion of the ultrasound image for obtaining doppler ultrasound data, and the doppler ultrasound window encompasses the one or more blood vessels (Fig. 4; see para. 0055 – “The graphical user interface 400 displays an ultrasound image 405 comprising a grayscale or B-mode image with color flow image data (e.g., velocity measurements) superimposed thereon in a color flow region of interest (ROI) 409 [doppler ultrasound window of vessels].”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 10, Brandl further teaches wherein defining the doppler ultrasound window includes automatically defining the doppler ultrasound window upon detecting the one or more blood vessels (see para. 0045 – “For example, method 300 may automatically identify the position of the vessel being imaged at 315, and automatically position the Doppler cursor at the position of the vessel for Doppler data acquisition.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 11, Tadross further teaches wherein: defining the doppler ultrasound window includes: receiving an input via an input device of the system (see para. 0028 – “or example, an operator of the ultrasound imaging system 100 may input, via the user interface 115, a selection of a CF imaging application.”); and
defining the doppler ultrasound window based on the input, the input including a selected portion of the ultrasound image, wherein the input device includes one or more of a graphical user interface of the display or control buttons of the ultrasound probe (Fig. 2; see para. 0037 – “After automatically updating the position of the CF ROI and the PW cursor to align with the vessel of interest (i.e., the artery or the vein) at 235, method 200 continues to 240. At 240, method 200 acquires a CF image with the updated CF ROI and PW cursor, and at 245, method 200 displays the updated CF image via the display device 118.”).
Furthermore, regarding claim 12, Brandl further teaches portraying the ultrasound image on a display of the system (Fig. 4; see para. 0055 – “The graphical user interface 400 displays an ultrasound image 405 comprising a grayscale or B-mode image with color flow image data (e.g., velocity measurements) superimposed thereon in a color flow region of interest (ROI) 409.”); and
Tadross further teaches superimposing a notification atop the ultrasound image, the notification including the identity of the blood vessel and/or the confidence for the identity of the blood vessel (see para. 0061 – “At 525, method 500 labels the structures as an artery or a vein according to the direction of flow within the structure. To label the structures [notification] as an artery or a vein according to the direction of flow, method 500 may segment the structures into different segments, and may identify the segments as the artery or vein using the vessel segment search (e.g., according to the vessel diameter, vessel area, uniformity of vessel diameter, or a combination of such measures as discussed hereinabove).”).
The motivation for claims 2, 4, 7, and 11-12 was shown previously in claim 1.
Claims 3 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl in view of Tadross, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Pelissier et al. (US 20130041250 A1, published February 14, 2013), hereinafter referred to as Pelissier.
Regarding claim 3, Brandl in view of Tadross teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Brandl in view of Tadross teaches identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery, but does not explicitly teach identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery based on the magnitude of the blood flow.
Whereas, Pelissier, in analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the condition includes determining a magnitude of the blood flow within the one or more blood vessels based on doppler ultrasound data, the method further comprising identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery based at least partially on the magnitude of the blood flow (Fig. 8; see para. 0089 – “In some embodiments, step 66 comprises comparing at least one of the one or more determined flow characteristic values of the sample volume with a threshold, determining whether the comparison indicates consistency with one the one or more of an artery, a vein and/or neither an artery and a vein, and displaying an indication of the determined result…Flow characteristic value 72 may comprise a value indicative of peak velocity magnitude,…”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery, as disclosed in Brandl in view of Tadross, by also identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery based on the magnitude of the blood flow, as disclosed in Pelissier. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further assist in distinguishing and identifying certain vessels in an ultrasound image.
Furthermore, regarding claim 13, Pelissier further teaches wherein the ultrasound probe further includes an array of magnetic sensors configured to convert magnetic signals from a magnetized medical device (instrument 19) into corresponding electrical signals of the magnetic signals for processing by the processor into position and/or orientation information of the magnetized medical device with respect to the predefined target area (see para. 0028 "A position-sensing system permits the spatial positions and orientations of insertable instrument 19 and probe 12 to be monitored in real time. In the illustrated embodiment, insertable instrument 19 and probe 12 are each associated with sensors (not shown), and position base unit 17 is operable to determine the locations of the sensors in space Position base unit 17and the sensors associated with probe 12 and instrument 19 may be provided by a known position sensor system. where using magnetic sensors to track the position of a medical device is known in the art), the method further comprising:
superimposing an iconographic representation of the medical device (instrument 19) atop the ultrasound image (see para. 0029 "In ultrasound image 23, instrument 19 is represented in image 23 by a computer-generated line 24 or other indicia that shows the position of instrument 19 relative to anatomical structures depicted in image 23."); and
defining the doppler ultrasound window based on the position and/or orientation of the iconographic representation of the medical device (instrument 19) atop the ultrasound image (see para. 0088 "The system automatically performs Doppler ultrasound at the location of the intersection of the trajectory and image plane and determines if the Doppler ultrasound data indicates an artery.").
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further assist in distinguishing and identifying certain vessels in an ultrasound image.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl in view of Tadross, as applied to claim 4 above, and in further view of Chono (US 20170014105 A1, published January 19, 2017), hereinafter referred to as Chono.
Regarding claim 5, Brandl in view of Tadross teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 4 above.
Brandl in view of Tadross teaches determining the pulsatility of the blood flow, but does not explicitly teach determining the pulsatility of the blood flow in coordination with the ECG signal.
Whereas, Chono, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein: the system is configured to obtain an ECG signal, and the method further comprises determining the pulsatility of the blood flow in coordination with the ECG signal (Fig. 2, doppler waveform 66 (flow velocity as pulsatility of blood flow) and ECG waveform 68; see para. 0059 "The electrocardiographic waveform 68 is a waveform which electrically indicates the movements of the heart 52, and is generated based on an organism signal obtained by the organism signal measurement unit 24.").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified determining the pulsatility of the blood flow, as disclosed in Brandl in view of Tadross, by also determining the pulsatility of the blood flow in coordination with the ECG signal, as disclosed in Chono. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to enable the user to understand the relationship between the Doppler waveform and the time phase in the pulsation cycle of the heart, as taught in Chono (see para. 0059)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl in view of Tadross, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Lampe (US 20210045967 A1, published February 18, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Lampe.
Regarding claim 6, Brandl in view of Tadross teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Brandl in view of Tadross teaches determining the condition of blood flow, but does not explicitly teach where determining the condition includes determining a pulse timing difference between a blood flow pulse within a first blood vessel and a corresponding blood flow pulse within a second blood vessel based on doppler ultrasound data.
Whereas, Lampe, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches wherein determining the condition includes determining a pulse timing difference between a blood flow pulse within a first blood vessel and a corresponding blood flow pulse within a second blood vessel based on doppler ultrasound data, the method further comprising identifying at least one of the first blood vessel or the second blood vessel as a vein or as an artery based at least partially on the pulse timing difference (see para. 0050 – “FIGS. 2B and 2C illustrate examples of blood flow distribution 220, 230 that could be measured by…an ultrasound Doppler blood flow sensor…for measuring a blood flow…”; see para. 0051 – “As illustrated in FIG. 2B, during effective chest compression treatment, the peaks of the arterial blood flow waveform 222 appear before the peaks of the inverted venous blood flow waveforms 224, such that a positive time delay 226 that is larger than zero is distinguishable between the arterial and venous peaks of the blood flow waveforms 222 and 224.”).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified determining the condition of blood flow, as disclosed in Brandl in view of Tadross, by having determining the condition includes determining a pulse timing difference between a blood flow pulse within a first blood vessel and a corresponding blood flow pulse within a second blood vessel based on doppler ultrasound data, as disclosed in Lampe. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to determine if the chest compression treatment is effective, as taught in Lampe (see para. 0051).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brandl in view of Tadross, as applied to claim 1 above, and in further view of Buras et al. (US 20210295048 A1, published September 23, 2021), hereinafter referred to as Buras.
Regarding claim 3, Brandl in view of Tadross teaches all of the elements disclosed in claim 1 above.
Brandl in view of Tadross teaches identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery, but does not explicitly teach determining a confidence for the identity of the one or more blood vessels.
Whereas, Buras, in an analogous field of endeavor, teaches determining a confidence for the identity of the one or more blood vessels based on one or more of the direction of the blood flow, the magnitude of the blood flow, the pulsatility of the blood flow, the pulse timing difference of the blood flow, or the cross-sectional shape (see para. 0140 "In one embodiment, the outcome-based feedback provided by the MLM 600 includes 1) the most-probable identity of the ultrasound image (e.g., the name of a desired structure such as "radial cross-section of the carotid artery," "lateral cross-section of the jugular vein," etc.), and 2) the probability of identification (e.g., 0% to 100%).").
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified identifying the one or more blood vessels as a vein or as an artery, as disclosed in Brandl in view of Tadross, by also determining a confidence for the identity of the one or more blood vessels, as disclosed in Buras. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to further assist in distinguishing and identifying certain vessels in an ultrasound image.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Cheng (US 20150351675 A1, published December 10, 2015) discloses simultaneously measure multiple cardiac blood vessel pulses, such as jugular venous pulse as well as carotid arterial pulse, thereby generating a dual waveform (Fig. 10).
Olde et al. (US 20130006130 A1, published January 3, 2013) discloses the difference in transit time between a blood line on the arterial side and a blood line on the venous side in the extracorporeal blood flow circuit is determined based on the actual arterial and venous pressures (absolute, relative, or average), which may be derived from any suitable sensor in the extracorporeal blood flow circuit (including the venous and arterial pressure sensors).
Sasaki (US 20130006111 A1, published January 3, 2013) discloses the ROI set on the B-mode image displayed on the display unit, where the range gate is adjusted in accordance with an instruction from the operator via the input unit so as to include the blood vessel lumen and a blood vessel wall.
J. Nippa et al, “Pulse wave velocity in human veins”, Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 558-563, April 1971 discloses simultaneous recordings of the pulse waves in the femoral vein and in the femoral artery (Fig. 5).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Nyrobi Celestine whose telephone number is 571-272-0129. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 7:00AM - 5:00PM 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, Pascal Bui-Pho can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/N.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights