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 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 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.
In re claim 2, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of “a display style common to each of the cardiac chambers” are. What’s the definition of some display style is common? Black and White lines?
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-7, 11-12, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgo et al. (US 2018/0192987, hereinafter Salgo ‘987) in view of Wang et al. (US 2012/0078097, hereinafter Wang ‘097).
In re claims 1, 14, 15, Salgo ‘987 teaches an ultrasound diagnostic apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: obtain a boundary position of each of at least two cardiac chambers among a left ventricle, a right ventricle, a left atrium, and a right atrium of a subject, the at least two cardiac chambers included in two-dimensional ultrasonic images that are obtained through ultrasonic scanning over the subject (0016; 0021, 0022) obtain a cardiac function index value for each of the at least two cardiac chambers based on some of the two-dimensional ultrasonic images corresponding to at least
Salgo ‘987 fails to teach based on some of the two-dimensional ultrasonic images corresponding to at least
Wang ‘097 teaches obtain a cardiac function index value for each of the at least two cardiac chambers based on some of the two-dimensional ultrasonic images corresponding to at least two cardiac cycle phases in an interval of one heartbeat (fig. 4, 0061, 0063, 0072, 0105); and display, on a display, (i) the two-dimensional ultrasonic images with information indicative of the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers superimposed on the boundary positions (fig. 8, 0080) (even if Salgo ‘987 isn’t as clear for this limitation (i)).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salgo ‘987 to include the features of Wang ‘097 in order to reduce or avoid inaccuracies due to drift.
In re claim 2, Salgo ‘987 teaches the processing circuitry is configured to display the information indicative of the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers and the information indicative of the cardiac function index values by associating the information indicative of the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers with the information indicative of the cardiac function index values with a display style common to each of the cardiac chambers (figs. 3-5).
In re claim 3, Salgo ‘987 teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain a boundary position of each of the two cardiac chambers including the left ventricle, the right ventricle, the left atrium, and the right atrium of the subject, the atrium, and the right atrium of the subject, and obtain a cardiac function index value for each of the four cardiac chambers. Salgo ‘987 merely does not teach display all four. Although Salgo ‘987 fails to teach four chambers which is two more, it would have been obvious as a design choice to obtain more of the same data and display them together to obtain more information for better cardiac function diagnoses.
In re claim 4, Wang ‘097 teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to obtain a boundary position of each of the at least two cardiac chambers of the subject, the at least two cardiac chambers included in two of the two-dimensional ultrasonic images corresponding to cardiac cycle phases including an end diastolic (ED) phase and an end systolic (ES) phase, and obtain a cardiac function index value for each of the at least two cardiac chambers based on the two two-dimensional ultrasonic images (fig. 4, 0061, 0063, 0072, 0105).
In re claim 5, Salgo ‘987 teaches further comprising an input interface configured to receive a user operation while the ultrasound scanning is being executed over the subject, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to, in response to the user operation, obtain the boundary position of each of the at least two cardiac chambers included in the two-dimensional ultrasonic images and obtain the cardiac function index value for each of the at least two cardiac chambers (0012, 0013, 0022, 0023, 0024).
In re claim 6, Salgo ‘987 teaches wherein the ultrasound scanning over the subject is two-dimensional scanning, the two-dimensional ultrasonic images are images based on B-mode data obtained through execution of the two-dimensional scanning, and the processing circuitry is configured to display the images based on the B mode data as a background with the information indicative of the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers superimposed thereon (0013, figs. 3-5, note that Wang ‘097 also teaches the same in para 0036, 0040, 0040, 0054, 0080).
In re claim 7, Wang ‘097 teaches wherein the processing circuitry is configured to use a trained model to obtain the boundary position of each of the at least two cardiac chambers included in the two-dimensional ultrasonic images (0077-0085).
In re claim 11, Wang teaches wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to automatically detect, from an apical 4-chamber moving image, a boundary group representing boundary positions of the cardiac chambers in the at least two cardiac cycle phases in the interval of one heartbeat, track the boundary group in the apical 4-chamber moving image in a remaining cardiac cycle phase different from a cardiac cycle phase in which the boundary group has been detected; and obtain the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers in the interval of one heartbeat by tracking the boundary group in the apical 4-chamber moving image (0062-0063, 0065, 0068).
In re claim 12, Salgo ‘987 teaches wherein the information indicative of the cardiac function index values is in form of a graph representing a time-variable curve of the cardiac function index value (0022, figs. 3-6).
Claim(s) 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgo ‘987 and Wang ‘097 in view of Murashita; Masaru (US 2008/0009735, hereinafter Murashita ‘735).
In re claims 8-9, Salgo ‘987 and Wang ‘097 fail to teach wherein the cardiac function index values for the left ventricle, the left atrium, and the right atrium include cavity volume and fractional volume change; wherein the cardiac function index value for the right ventricle includes cavity area and fractional area change.
Murashita ‘735 teaches wherein the cardiac function index values for the left ventricle, the left atrium, and the right atrium include cavity volume and fractional volume change (fig. 11, 0014, 0043, 0053, 0055, 0061, 0062, 0074); wherein the cardiac function index value for the right ventricle includes cavity area and fractional area change (fig. 11, 0014, 0043, 0053, 0055, 0061, 0062, 0074).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salgo ‘987 to include the features of Wang ‘097 in order to reduce or avoid inaccuracies due to drift, and to include the features of Murashita ‘735 in order to evaluate a function concerning the heart based on the specific time which is measured.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgo ‘987 and Wang ‘097 in view of Mihalef et al. (US 2020/0323454, hereinafter Mihalef '454).
In re claim 10, Salgo ‘987 teaches wherein the cardiac function index values for the left ventricle, the left atrium, and the right atrium among the at least two cardiac chambers (figs. 3-6), but fails to teach include cardiac wall global longitudinal strain (GLS), and the cardiac function index value for the right ventricle among the at least two cardiac chambers include free wall GLS.
Mihalef '454 teaches include cardiac wall global longitudinal strain (0002, 0028, 0034), and the cardiac function index value for the right ventricle among the at least two cardiac chambers include free wall GLS (0002, 0028, 0034).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salgo ‘987 to include the features of Wang ‘097 in order to reduce or avoid inaccuracies due to drift, and to include the features of Mihalef '454 in order to provide both local and global measurements for making better clinical decisions.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salgo ‘987 and Wang ‘097 in view of Abe et al. (US 2015/0038846, hereinafter Abe ‘846).
In re claim 13, Salgo ‘987 and Wang ‘097 fail to teach further comprising an electrocardiograph configured to obtain an electrocardiogram of the subject, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display information indicative of the electrocardiogram of the subject together with the information indicative of the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers and the information indicative of the cardiac function index values.
Abe ‘846 teaches further comprising an electrocardiograph configured to obtain an electrocardiogram of the subject, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to display information indicative of the electrocardiogram of the subject together with the information indicative of the boundary positions of the cardiac chambers and the information indicative of the cardiac function index values (fig. 20, 0035, 0168-0170).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of invention to modify the method/device of Salgo ‘987 to include the features of Wang ‘097 in order to reduce or avoid inaccuracies due to drift, and to include the features of Abe ‘846 in order to make a more detailed diagnosis of cardiac functions easily and accurately.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BO JOSEPH PENG whose telephone number is (571)270-1792. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Friday: 8:00 AM-5:00 PM 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, 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.
/BO JOSEPH PENG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3797
Prosecution Insights