DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 2 & 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 2 & 6, “a blood flow of the subject” should read –the blood flow of the subject--.
In claim 6, “a flow velocity” should read –the flow velocity--.
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.
Claim 2 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 2 teaches that, as part of the first image generation processing that generates a first blood flow image, generating a fourth blood flow image and subsequently detecting maximum values of blood flow signals in this image. Claim 2 further teaches that the first blood flow image is generated using the detected maximum values of the fourth blood flow image. Therefore, the time scale of the image generation is unclear, as claim 2 claims that the fourth image depends on the first image, but the first image depends on the fourth image. Thus, the claim is rendered indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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, 3-5, & 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi (US 2020/0273181) and Hashimoto (US 2004/0081340).
Regarding claim 1, Igarashi teaches an ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus, comprising:
a processor (processing circuitry 180, [0033]); and
a memory (internal storage circuitry 130, [0033]) storing a program (program, [0038]) which, when executed by the processor, causes the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus (ultrasound diagnostic apparatus 1, [0029]) to execute ultrasonic wave transmission and reception processing of transmitting and receiving ultrasonic waves with respect to a subject ([0031]), execute data acquisition processing of acquiring data of reflected waves in the subject due to the transmission and reception of ultrasonic waves ([0053]) over a plurality of frames ((N-1)th frame & Nth frame, [0061], Figures 2-4), execute first image generation processing of generating a first blood flow image indicating a blood flow of the subject using the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing ([0057]), execute second image generation processing of generating a second blood flow image using the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing (subsequent images acquired after the setting of the frame rate, [0004]; [0117]), execute detection processing of detecting maximum values of blood flow signals in a predetermined range of the second blood flow image ([0093] & [0096]-[0097], Figures 5-6), execute calculation processing of calculating a blood flow velocity (display condition DC4, [0131], Figure 12) and a blood flow direction (direction color scale DCS, [0132], Figure 12) of the subject based on positional information of the maximum values detected by the detection processing ([0131]-[0132], Figure 12), and execute third image processing of generating a third blood flow image based on the first blood flow image, the blood flow velocity, and the blood flow direction ([0131]-[0132] & [0135], Figures 12-13).
However, Igarashi fails to disclose that the second blood flow image includes a component with a lower spatial frequency than the first blood flow image.
Hashimoto teaches that the second blood flow image (color blood flow images, [0080]) includes a component with a lower spatial frequency than the first blood flow image ([0179]).
Paragraph [0179] teaches removing high spatial frequency components; an image with its high spatial frequency components removed would have a lower spatial frequency than the original.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Igarashi such that the second blood flow image includes a component with a lower spatial frequency than the first blood image, as taught by Hashimoto. Images with a lower spatial frequency require less processing power to generate and store, allocating further computational power to other resources.
Regarding claim 3, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Hashimoto further teaches that in the second image processing, the second blood flow image is generated using a low-frequency component of the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing ([0179]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Igarashi such that in the second image processing, the second blood flow image is generated using a low-frequency component of the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing, as taught by Hashimoto. Images with a lower spatial frequency require less processing power to generate and store, allocating further computational power to other resources.
Regarding claim 4, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that in the second image generation processing, the second blood flow image is generated using the data acquired by the data acquisition processing by transmission and reception of the ultrasonic waves which differs from the transmission and reception of the ultrasonic wave for acquiring the data used to generate the first blood flow image ([0004] & [0117]).
Paragraphs [0004] & [0117] teach setting a frame rate based on the speed of blood flow. The detection of the speed and the subsequent imaging at the new frame rate must occur at different times (i.e., a different transmission and reception of the ultrasonic wave).
Regarding claim 5, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that in the data acquisition processing, an amount of displacement of tissue of the subject included in the data of the reflected waves is calculated ([0101]), and data obtained by performing registering of the tissue with respect to data of the reflected waves using the calculated amount of displacement is acquired as the data of the plurality of frames ([0101]).
Paragraph [0101] teaches calculating the amount of movement of a bubble that acts as a contrast agent. The movement of the contrast agent in blood is equivalent to the movement of blood. Nevertheless, claim 13 of Igarashi teaches that both the contrast agent or red blood cell can be tracked.
Regarding claim 8, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that in the third image generation processing, the third blood flow image is generated by coloring the blood flow velocity ([0131], Figure 12) and the blood flow direction ([0132], Figure 12) according to a position of the maximum values detected by the detection processing ([0131]-[0132], Figure 12).
Regarding claim 9, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that in the third image generation processing, the third blood flow image is generated by integrating trajectories connecting the maximum values detected by the detection processing over the plurality of frames ([0087] & Figure 4; [0132] & Figure 12).
Regarding claim 10, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that in the third image generation processing, the third blood flow image is generated by excluding the blood flow velocity and the blood flow direction outside of a vascular region indicated by the first blood flow image ([0080]-[0083] & Figure 4; [0150]-[0151] & Figure 17).
Paragraphs [0080]-[0083] teach of three search ranges R1-3, in which any bubble appearing in a search range is tracked. As is depicted in Figure 4, bubble B4 does not appear in a search range, and its movement and trajectory are not tracked. Similarly, [0150]-[0151] teach excluding flow data outside of a certain range; this is depicted in Figure 17.
Claim 11 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 12 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 1.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi in view of Hashimoto, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Sato (US 2001/0009977).
Regarding claim 2, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that maximum values of blood flow signals in a predetermined range of a fourth blood flow image are detected ([0093] & [0096]-[0097], Figures 5-6), and the first blood flow image is generated by integrating the detected maximum values (Figures 2-4).
However, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto fail to disclose that in the first image generation processing, clutter components related to the blood flow of the subject included in the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing are reduced, and a fourth blood flow image indicating a blood flow of the subject is generated using data with the reduced clutter components.
Sato teaches that in the first image generation processing, clutter components related to the blood flow of the subject included in the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing are reduced ([0049]), and a fourth blood flow image indicating a blood flow of the subject is generated using data with the reduced clutter components ([0049]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Igarashi and Hashimoto such that in the first image generation processing, clutter components related to the blood flow of the subject included in the data of the plurality of frames acquired by the data acquisition processing are reduced, and a fourth blood flow image indicating a blood flow of the subject is generated using data with the reduced clutter components, as taught by Sato. Reducing clutter components results in higher-quality images.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi in view of Hashimoto, as applied to claim 1, above, in further view of Okabayashi (US 2003/0023165).
Regarding claim 6, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 1, and Igarashi further teaches that the program, when executed by the processor, further causes the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus to execute acceptance processing of accepting a designation of the flow velocity of the blood flow of the subject by a user ([0093]), and in the second image generation processing, the second blood flow image is generated based on a frame rate determined according to the flow velocity ([0004] & [0117]) accepted by the acceptance processing.
Paragraph [0093] states “The setting of the range of the moving speed may be changed discretionarily”. It is expected that the user is able to change the range of speed.
However, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto fail to disclose that in the second image generation processing, the second blood flow image is generated based on a band determined according to the flow velocity.
Okabayashi teaches that in the second image generation processing, the second blood flow image is generated based on a band (center frequency Fb, [0125]) determined according to the flow velocity ([0125]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Igarashi and Hashimoto such that in the second image generation processing, the second blood flow image is generated based on a band determined according to the flow velocity, as taught by Okabayashi. Per [0125] of Okabayashi, adjusting the frequency band in consideration of the blood flow velocity ensures the highest possible quality of the image.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Igarashi in view of Hashimoto and Okabayashi, as applied to claim 6, above, in further view of Chiang (US 2008/0009739).
Regarding claim 7, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto and Okabayashi teach the ultrasonic diagnostic apparatus according to claim 6, and Igarashi further teaches that in the second image generation processing, the frame rate is determined based on a movement distance of blood ([0004] & [0117]).
However, Igarashi in view of Hashimoto and Okabayashi fail to disclose that the movement distance of blood between frames indicated by the flow velocity is equal to or less than half of a transmission wavelength of the ultrasonic waves.
Chiang teaches a spatial resolution equal to or less than half of a transmission wavelength of the ultrasonic waves ([0028]).
Examiner asserts that one having ordinary skill in the art would understand that the teaching of Chiang can be applied to images comprising moving tissue, as well.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Igarashi, Hashimoto, and Okabayashi to include a spatial resolution equal to or less than half of a transmission wavelength of the ultrasonic waves, as taught by Chiang. Per [0028] of Chiang, this is a well-known value to achieve high-quality images. When applied to Doppler imaging, this ensures that the movement of the blood can be properly tracked and visualized regardless of the system’s frame rate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM KOLKIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5480. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 1:00PM-10:00PM EDT.
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, Keith Raymond can be reached at (572)-270-1790. 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.
/ADAM D. KOLKIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3798
/KEITH RAYMOND/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3798
Prosecution Insights