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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 8:
“Although Jago appears to describe computing the displacement between image A' and image B' based on the superimposed portion of image A' and image B', Jago does not disclose setting, in the superimposed portion, regions corresponding to the reference region and the corresponding region of the present application in image A' and image B', respectively.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Jago recites “Where image B' overlays image A'…” in Col 7 lines 7-8. In Jago, the processing steps described are performed by processors, and it inherently requires settings and programs to run so as to identify and determine (or set in a computer programming language) as to where the images overlay each other (i.e. provide a computer setting ). See Figs 6 in Jago where, overlap regions are identified and further processing is performed based on this identification. Hence Jogo discloses a setting of overlapped regions.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, 9 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torp [US 20140187950 A1] in view of Jago [US 6416477 B1].
As pe claim 1, Torp teaches a panoramic ultrasound image forming apparatus (Torp Fig 11)
that forms a panoramic ultrasound image by combining a plurality of frames (Torp ¶0054 “…the processor 116 may combine the first frame of data 226 and the second frame of data 228 create a panoramic image with a wider field of view”)
including a first frame obtained by scanning with an ultrasound beam from an ultrasound probe located at a first position toward a subject and a second frame obtained by scanning with the ultrasound beam from the ultrasound probe located at a second position different from the first position toward the subject (Torp ¶0054 “the processor 116 may combine the first frame of data 226 and the second frame of data 228 to create a panoramic image …the term "panoramic image" includes an image acquired from two or more different probe locations”), comprising:
a processor (Torp Fig 1 item 116), wherein the processor is configured to
acquire positional information indicating a position of the ultrasound probe in a case where a reception signal corresponding to each frame for forming the panoramic ultrasound image is acquired (Torp ¶0022 “system 107 may include one or more of the following sensors: a gyro sensor, an accelerometer, and a magnetic sensor. The motion sensing system 107 is adapted to determine the position and orientation of the ultrasound probe 106, preferably in real-time”, ¶0050 “By using the position data from the motion sensing system 107, the processor 116 is able to determine the relative position and orientation of each frame.”); and
form the panoramic ultrasound image by combining the plurality of frames (Torp ¶0054 “the processor 116 may combine the first frame of data 226 and the second frame of data 228 to create a panoramic image”. See also ¶0071),
and combine the first frame and the second frame (Torp ¶0054 “the processor 116 may combine the first frame of data 226 and the second frame of data 228 to create a panoramic image”) Torp ¶0056 “may use data from the motion sensing system 107 to determine that the probe 106 has been translated along the surface of a patient.”, ¶0068 “detects a predetermined motion pattern based on the position data. …the processor 116 may use position data from an accelerometer for determine how the probe 106 has been translated, and the processor 116 may use position data from a gyro sensor to determine how the probe 106 has been rotated”);
Torp does not expressly discuss combining by shifting the first frame and the second frame, and wherein the combining includes: setting, based on the first position and the second position, a reference region in a superimposed portion that is a portion of the first frame corresponding to a portion where a scanning surface corresponding to the first frame and a scanning surface corresponding to the second frame overlap each other, and specifying a corresponding region that is a region in the second frame corresponding to the reference region of the first frame and combining the first frame and the second frame by shifting the first frame and the second frame based on a difference between a position of the reference region and a position of the corresponding region..
Jago, in a related field of spatially compounded panoramic ultrasonic images, teaches combining by shifting the first frame and the second frame (Jago Col 6 lines 14-26 “. The processor 70 computes the displacement from one elemental image to the next on the basis of their overlapping (common) image areas. …When the displacement necessary to align (register) a new elemental image to a previous elemental image in a panoramic image is known, the new elemental image can be combined with the others to produce an extended image”, Col 4 lines 4-11 alignment by pushing, the displacement and pushing corresponds to “shift”), and
wherein the combining includes: setting, based on the first position and the second position, a reference region in a superimposed portion that is a portion of the first frame corresponding to a portion where a scanning surface corresponding to the first frame and a scanning surface corresponding to the second frame overlap each other (Jago Col 7 lines 4-7 “image B' is next acquired and aligned with image A' as described above. Image B' is stored in the history buffer in its aligned position in x,y coordinates with respect to image A'. Where image B' overlays image A',” the overlay region is the overlap / reference region set by the processing unit. Note, the processing is performed by a processor and it has to inherently set (i.e. provide a computer setting) as to “ Where image B' overlays image A' ”), and
specifying a corresponding region that is a region in the second frame corresponding to the reference region of the first frame (This “specifying” is implied since the overlap region corresponds to both frames) and
combining the first frame and the second frame by shifting the first frame and the second frame based on a difference between a position of the reference region and a position of the corresponding region (Jago 7 lines 8-12 “pixels are "pushed down" by one pixel depth so that the upper pixel is occupied by pixel B' and the remaining are still occupied by image A' pixel values, as shown in FIG. 6b. In areas where image B' does not overlay image A', the full pixel depth is filled with image B' pixel values).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Torp by utilizing alignment and compounding techniques as in Jago, for the generated images. The motivation would be to provide a method of forming a panoramic image in which shadowing and speckle are reduced (Jago ¶0058-¶0060).
As per claim 2, Torp in view of Jago further teaches wherein the processor is further configured to acquire posture information indicating a posture of the ultrasound probe in a case where the reception signal corresponding to each frame for forming the panoramic ultrasound image is acquired (Torp ¶0035 “Position data from the motion sensing system 107 may be used to detect many different types of motion. For example, the position data may be used to detect translations …Additionally, the position data from the motion sensing system 107 may be used to detect rotations, such as tilting the probe”), and
rotate the second frame with respect to the first frame in accordance with a rotation amount corresponding to a difference between a first posture, which is a posture of the ultrasound probe in a case where the ultrasound probe is located at the first position, and a second posture, which is a posture of the ultrasound probe in a case where the ultrasound probe is located at the second position, and combines the first frame and the second frame (Jago Col 5 lines 28-34 “The EFOV image processor, .. receives each newly acquired image during the panoramic mode of operation and computes the displacement and rotation between the new image and a previously acquired elemental image of the panoramic image” Col 11 lines 63-65 “…constructed embodiment in which frame to frame motion includes translation and rotation, the actual computations may involve more complex matrix operations”).
As per claim 9, Torp in view of Jago does not expressly teach a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing a panoramic ultrasound image forming program. However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to embody method of method in Torp in view of Jago in a “non-transitory computer readable storage medium” so that the instructions can be automatically executed.
Claims 5-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torp in view of Jago as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Lee [US 20140081143 A1].
As per claims 5-6, Torp in view of Jago does not expressly teach wherein the processor is further configured to notify an operator in a case where an angle formed between a scanning direction of the ultrasound beam from the ultrasound probe in a case where the ultrasound probe is located at the first position /posture and a direction from the first position toward the second position /posture is equal to or greater than a first threshold angle.
Lee, in a related field of diagnosing an object by using ultrasound waves, teaches the processor is further configured to notify an operator in a case where an angle formed between a scanning direction of the ultrasound beam from the ultrasound probe in a case where the ultrasound probe is located at the first position /posture and a direction from the first position toward the second position /posture is equal to or greater than a first threshold angle (Lee ¶0112 “the apparatus 100 may divide an angle from 0.degree. to 90.degree. into a plurality of angle sections and may output an alarm message to the user when an angle equal to or greater than a threshold value is measured.”).
Torp in view of Jang teaches capability for determining postures and angles of the probe for combining image frames. Lee teaches informing the clinician if a threshold angle is crossed. Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Torp in view of Jang by integrating the notification scheme as in Lee so as to guide a clinician to be in a range for steering / scanning, so that measurements and calculations can to be performed within the scope of the apparatus and the application /diagnosis.
Claim 7 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torp in view of Jago as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Caluser [US 20210068782 A1].
As per claim 7, Torp in view of Jang does not expressly teach the processor is further configured to notify an operator in a case where the second position is separated from the first position by a distance equal to or greater than a second threshold distance.
Caluser, in a related field of Ultrasound imaging systems, teaches the processor is further configured to notify an operator in a case where the second position is separated from the first position by a distance equal to or greater than a second threshold distance (Caluser ¶0130 “f either of the near end lines or the far end lines falls outside the maximum distance, the warning 724 may be sounded and/or displayed to alert the operator”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the apparatus in Torp in view of Jago by utilizing notification scheme as in Caluser so as to assist operator in maintaining optimal probe speeds for required spatial resolution (Caluser ¶0010).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 8 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Examiner does not find any references of record anticipating the claims. Further, as per claim 4, examiner does not find it obvious to modify references to an intermediate frame generation unit is generated in a case (i.e. a condition) where the second position is separated from the first position by a distance equal to or greater than a first threshold distance, and wherein the combination processing unit forms the panoramic ultrasound image by combining the three frames. As per claim 8, examiner does not find individual or combination of references teaching display of a panoramic ultrasound image together with a plurality of images of the probe captured by a camera.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OOMMEN JACOB whose telephone number is (571)270-5166. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, ANNE M KOZAK can be reached at 571-270-0552. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Oommen Jacob/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights